Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 1 of 339 

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 85, 86 and 600 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 575 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0865; FRL_XXXX-X; NHTSA-2010-0087]

RIN 2060-AQ09; RIN 2127-AK73

Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label 

 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are conducting a joint rulemaking to redesign 

and add information to the current fuel economy label that is posted on the window 

sticker of all new cars and light-duty trucks sold in the U.S. The redesigned label will 

provide new information to American consumers about the fuel economy and 

consumption, fuel costs, and environmental impacts associated with purchasing new 

vehicles beginning with model year 2012 cars and trucks. This action will also develop 

new labels for certain advanced technology vehicles, which are poised to enter the U.S. 

market, in particular plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric vehicles. 

NHTSA and EPA are proposing these changes because the Energy Independence 

and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 imposes several new labeling requirements, because the 

agencies believe that the current labels can be improved to help consumers make more 

informed vehicle purchase decisions, and because the time is right to develop new labels 

for advanced technology vehicles that are being commercialized. This proposal is also 

consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that established 

harmonized federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel 

economy (CAFE) standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup 

trucks for model years 2012-2016.1

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before [Insert date 60 days 

after publication in the Federal Register]. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection provisions must be received by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on or before [Insert date 30 days after publication in 

the Federal Register]. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on 

“Public Participation” for more information about written comments. 

 

1

 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 2 of 339 

Hearings: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold one public hearing on [Insert Date] in 

[insert location]. The hearing will start at 9 a.m. local time and continue until everyone 

has had a chance to speak. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on 

“Public Participation.” for more information about the public hearings. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0865 and/or NHTSA-2010-0087, by one of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: newlabels@epa.gov 

• Fax: EPA: (202) 566–1741; NHTSA: (202) 493-2251. 

• Mail: 

o EPA: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0865. 

o NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

o In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 

725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: 

o EPA: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0865. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 

made for deliveries of boxed information. 

o NHTSA: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865 

and/or NHTSA-2010-0087. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on 

“Public Participation” for more information about submitting written comments. 

Public Hearing: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold a public hearing on [Insert Date], 

in [Insert Location] at [Insert Address]. See the SUPPLEMENTARY 

INFORMATION section on “Public Participation” for more information about the 

public hearings. 

Docket: All documents in the dockets are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available in hard 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 3 of 339 

copy in EPA’s docket, and electronically in NHTSA’s online docket. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the following locations: EPA: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. NHTSA: Docket 

Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. The 

Docket Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA: Lucie Audette, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone number: 

734-214-4850; fax number: 734-214-4816; email address: audette.lucie@epa.gov, or 

Assessment and Standards Division Hotline; telephone number (734) 214-4636; e-mail 

address asdinfo@epa.gov. NHTSA: Gregory Powell, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 

366-5206; Fax: (202) 493-2990; email address: gregory.powell@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

 This action affects companies that manufacture or sell new light-duty vehicles, 

light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, as defined under EPA’s CAA 

regulations,2 and passenger automobiles (passenger cars) and non-passenger automobiles 

(light trucks) as defined under NHTSA’s CAFE regulations.3

 Regulated categories and 

entities include: 

Category NAICS CodesA Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities 

Industry 336111 

336112 

Motor vehicle manufacturers. 

Industry 811112 

811198 

423110 

Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components. 

Industry 336211 Stretch limousine manufacturers and hearse manufacturers. 

Industry 441110 Automobile dealers. 

A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

 

2

 “Light-duty vehicle,” “light-duty truck,” and “medium-duty passenger vehicle” are defined in 40 CFR 

86.1803-01. Generally, the term “light-duty vehicle” means a passenger car, the term “light-duty truck” 

means a pick-up truck, sport-utility vehicle, or minivan of up to 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating, and 

“medium-duty passenger vehicle” means a sport-utility vehicle or passenger van from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs 

gross vehicle weight rating. Medium-duty passenger vehicles do not include pick-up trucks. 

3

 “Passenger car” and “light truck” are defined in 49 CFR Part 523. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 4 of 339 

 This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding 

entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether particular activities 

may be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may 

direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person listed in FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. Public Participation 

NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of this joint proposed rule. 

This section describes how you can participate in this process. 

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

In this joint proposal, there are many issues common to both EPA’s and 

NHTSA’s proposals. For the convenience of all parties, comments submitted to the EPA 

docket (whether hard copy or electronic) will be considered comments submitted to both 

EPA and the NHTSA docket, and vice versa. Therefore, the public only needs to submit 

one set of comments to either one of the two agency dockets that will be reviewed by 

both agencies. Comments that are submitted for consideration by only one agency should 

be identified as such, and comments that are submitted for consideration by both agencies 

should be identified as such. Absent such identification, each agency will exercise its 

best judgment to determine whether a comment is submitted on its proposal. 

 

Further instructions for submitting comments to either the EPA or NHTSA docket 

are described below. 

EPA: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed 

in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 

additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage 

at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 5 of 339 

NHTSA: Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the Docket Number NHTSA2010-0087 in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.4

 

NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your 

comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. If you are submitting 

comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be 

scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the 

agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.5

 Please note that 

pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for the substantive data to be relied upon and 

used by the agencies, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and Department of Transportation (DOT) Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we 

encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB’s guidelines 

may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_reproducible (last accessed 

June 2, 2010), and DOT’s guidelines may be accessed at http://regs.dot.gov (last accessed 

June 22, 2010). 

Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, please remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket numbers and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions - The agencies may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or 

data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your 

estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or 

personal threats. 

Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the 

DATES section above. 

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

 

4

 49 CFR 553.21. 

5

 Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of converting an image of text, such as a scanned 

paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-editable text. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 6 of 339 

 Any confidential business information (CBI) submitted to one of the agencies will 

also be available to the other agency.6 However, as with all public comments, any CBI 

information only needs to be submitted to either one of the agencies’ dockets, and it will 

be available to the other. Following are specific instructions for submitting CBI to either 

agency. 

EPA: Do not submit CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 

CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 

that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 

the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR Part 2. In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have 

deleted the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of the 

methods set forth above. 

 NHTSA: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, 

you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 

address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you 

send a comment containing confidential business information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information 

regulation.7 In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of the methods set forth 

above. 

Will the Agencies Consider Late Comments?

 

 NHTSA and EPA will consider all comments received before the close of 

business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent 

practicable, we will also consider comments received after that date. If interested persons 

believe that any new information the agency places in the docket affects their comments, 

they may submit comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should 

consider that information for the final rule. However, the agencies’ ability to consider 

any such late comments in this rulemaking will be limited due to the time frame for 

issuing a final rule. 

 

 If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider it in developing a 

final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking 

action. 

 

6

 This statement constitutes notice to commenters pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(c) that EPA will share 

confidential information received with NHTSA unless commenters specify that they wish to submit their 

CBI only to EPA and not to both agencies. 

7

 49 CFR part 512. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 7 of 339 

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted By Other People?

 

 You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any 

time by going to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing 

the dockets. You may also read the materials at the EPA Docket Center or NHTSA 

Docket Management Facility by going to the street addresses given above under 

ADDRESSES. 

How do I participate in the public hearings?

 NHTSA and EPA will jointly host one public hearing on the date and location 

described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections above. 

If you would like to present testimony at the public hearings, we ask that you 

notify the EPA and NHTSA contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. Once EPA and 

NHTSA learn how many people have registered to speak at the public hearing, we will 

allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for lunch and 

necessary breaks throughout the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should 

anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the 

time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. We suggest that you bring copies of your 

statement or other material for the EPA and NHTSA panels and the audience. It would 

also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other materials before the 

hearing. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use 

technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you plan to do 

so, you must notify the contact persons in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT section above. You also must make arrangements to provide your 

presentation or any other aids to NHTSA and EPA in advance of the hearing in order to 

facilitate set-up. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the 

audience who wants to give testimony. 

 The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should 

contact the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above no later than ten days before the date of the hearing. 

NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of 

evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep 

the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary 

information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the 

court reporter. 

Table of Contents 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 8 of 339 

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA Proposal on New Vehicle Labels

A. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Label Changes

B. A Comprehensive Research Program Informed the Development of Proposed 

Labels

C. When Would The Proposed Label Changes Take Effect?

D. What Are The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Label Changes?

E. Relationship of This Proposal to Other Federal and State Programs

F. History of Federal Fuel Economy Label Requirements

G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

1. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)

2. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)

II. Proposed Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Content (Metrics and Rating 

Systems)

A. Conventional Gasoline, Diesel and Hybrid Vehicles

1. Fuel Economy Performance

2. Fuel Consumption

3. Greenhouse Gas Performance

4. Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating Systems

5. Other Emissions Performance and Rating System

6. Overall Energy and Environmental Rating

7. Indicating Highest Fuel Economy/Lowest Greenhouse Vehicles

8. SmartWay Logo

9. Annual Fuel Cost

10. Relative Fuel Savings or Cost

11. Range of Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles

12. Other Label Text

13. Gas Guzzler Tax Information

B. Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels

1. Introduction

2. EPA Statutory Requirements

3. Principles Underlying the Co-Proposed Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels

4. Key Advanced Technology Vehicle Label Issues

C. Labels for Other Vehicle/Fuel Technologies

1. Flexible Fuel Vehicles

2. Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

3. Dual Fuel Natural Gas & Gasoline Vehicles

III. Proposed Revisions to Fuel Economy Label Appearance

A. Proposed Label Designs

1. Label 1

2. Label 2

B. Alternative Label Design (Label 3)
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 9 of 339 

IV. Agency Research On Fuel Economy Labeling

A. Methods of Research

1. Literature Review

2. Focus Groups

3. Internet Survey

4. Expert Panel

B. Key Research Questions and Findings

1. Effective Metrics and Rating Systems for Existing and New Label Information

2. Effective Metrics and Ratings Systems for Advanced Technology Vehicles

3. Effective Metrics to Enable Vehicle Comparison

4. Effective Whole Label Designs

5. Tools beyond the Label

V. Implementation of the New Label

A. Timing

B. Labels for 2011 model year advanced technology vehicles

C. Implementation of Label Content

VI. Additional Related EPA Proposals

A. Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Test Procedures

1. Electric Vehicles

2. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

B. Utility Factors

1. Utility Factor Background

2. General Application of Utility Factors

3. Calculating combined values using Cycle Specific Utility Factors

4. Low Powered Vehicles.

C. Comparable Class Categories

D. Using Smartphone QR Codes® to Link to Fuel Economy Information
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 10 of 339 

 E. Fuel Economy Information in the context of the “Monroney” Sticker

F. Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections

VII. Projected Impacts of the Proposed Requirements

A. Costs Associated with this Rule

1. Operations and Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours

2. Facility Costs

3. Startup Costs

4. Cost Summary

B. Impact of Proposing One Label to Meet EPCA/EISA

C. Benefits of Label Changes

D. Summary

VIII. Agencies’ Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews

A. Relationship of EPA’s Proposed Requirements With Other Statutes and 

Regulations

1. Automobile Disclosure Act

2. Internal Revenue Code

3. Clean Air Act

4. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for 

New Vehicles

5. California Environmental Performance Label

B. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (NHTSA only)

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments

7. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

A/C Air Conditioning 

AC Alternating Current 

AIDA Automobile Information Disclosure Act 

BTU British Thermal Units 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBI Confidential Business Information 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 11 of 339 

CD Charge Depleting 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 Methane 

CNG Compressed Natural Gas 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

CREE Carbon-related Exhaust Emissions 

CS Charge Sustaining 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOT Department of Transportation 

E85 A mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline 

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

EREV Extended Range Electric Vehicle 

EV Electric Vehicle 

FCV Fuel Cell Vehicle 

FE Fuel Economy 

FFV Flexible Fuel Vehicle 

FTC Federal Trade Commission 

FTP Federal Test Procedure 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

HCHO Formaldehyde 

HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle 

HFC Hydrofluorocarbon 

HFET Highway Fuel Economy Test 

ICI Independent Commercial Importer 

IT Information Technology 

ICR Information Collection Request 

LEV II Low Emitting Vehicle II 

LEV II opt 1 Low Emitting Vehicle II, option 1 

MDPV Medium Duty Passenger Vehicle 

MPG Miles per Gallon 

MPGe Miles per Gallon equivalent 

MY Model Year 

N2O Nitrous Oxide 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NEC Net Energy Change 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NMOG Non-methane Organic Gases 

NOX Oxides of Nitrogen 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 12 of 339 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OCR Optical Character Recognition 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PEF Petroleum Equivalency Factor 

PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle 

PM Particulate Matter 

PZEV Partial Zero-Emissions Vehicle 

RCDA Actual Charge Depleting Range 

RESS Rechargeable Energy Storage System 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SFTP Supplemental Federal Test Procedure 

SOC State-of-Charge 

SULEV II Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles II 

SUV Sport Utility Vehicle 

UDDS Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 

UF Utility Factor 

ULEV II Ultra Low Emission Vehicles II 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle 

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA Proposal on New Vehicle Labels 

A. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Label Changes 

This joint action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes what will likely be the most 

significant overhaul of the federal government’s fuel economy label or “sticker” since its 

inception over 30 years ago. 

 The current fuel economy label required on all new passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles contains the following core information, as 

required by statute: 

• City and highway fuel economy values in miles per gallon 

• Comparison of the vehicle’s combined city/highway fuel economy to a range of 

comparable vehicles 

• Estimated fuel cost to operate the vehicle for one year 

This joint proposal is designed to update the current label in order to increase the 

usefulness of the label in helping consumers choose more efficient and environmentally 

friendly vehicles that would also meet new requirements added by Congress. This 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 13 of 339 

proposal also includes new label designs for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles (PHEVs), two advanced vehicle technologies that are beginning to enter 

the market. 

 EPA and NHTSA are co-proposing two label designs for public comment without 

a single primary proposal, although the final rule will adopt only one label design. Both 

label designs meet statutory requirements and rely on the same underlying data; they 

differ in how the data is used and presented on the label. One is a more traditional label 

design that retains the current label’s focus on fuel economy values and annual fuel cost 

projections, with a general label layout more similar to the current label. The second 

label design contains all appropriate information but prominently features a letter grade to 

communicate the overall fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions – along with 

projected 5-year fuel cost or savings associated with a particular vehicle when compared 

to an average vehicle. The agencies are also seeking comment on an alternative third 

label design that follows a more traditional format but presents some information 

differently. All labels expand upon the content found on the current label and include the 

following information for conventional vehicles (advanced technology vehicle labels 

contain additional information tailored to the individual technology): 

• City and highway fuel economy values in miles per gallon 

• Combined city/highway fuel consumption in gallons per 100 miles 

• Tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in grams per mile 

• Annual fuel cost in dollars per year 

• A slider bar comparing the combined fuel economy to all other vehicles 

• A slider bar comparing the CO2 emissions to all other vehicles 

• A slider bar comparing non-CO2 (“other” or “smog-related”) emissions to all 

other vehicles 

• A symbol that can be read by a ‘Smartphone’ for additional consumer information 

(also known as a QR Code®) 

• A reference to a federal government website for additional information 

Despite the fact that the co-proposed labels are based on the same underlying data, they 

are significantly different in terms of presentation and prominence. The agencies 

encourage public feedback on the central question of which label design would be more 

useful and help consumers select more energy efficient and environmentally friendly 

vehicles that meet their needs, or whether the agencies should consider alternative 

designs. 

NHTSA and EPA are proposing these changes because the Energy Independence 

and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 mandates several new labeling requirements intended to 

help consumers make more informed vehicle purchase decisions, and because this is an 

appropriate time to develop new labels for advanced technology vehicles (Battery 

Electric or EVs and Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles or PHEVs) that are being commercialized. 

The agencies believe that a joint label meeting our separate statutory requirements and 

our shared consumer information objectives makes far more sense for both consumers 

and manufacturers than separate labels. As a joint rulemaking, this proposal is also 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 14 of 339 

consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that established 

harmonized federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel 

economy (CAFE) standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup 

trucks for model years 2012-2016.8

The agencies believe these new labeling requirements for automobiles are 

important in light of a growing national interest in both fuel economy and climate 

change. Historically, consumers have generally paid the most attention to fuel economy 

when fuel prices increase sharply over a short period of time, such as in 2008, but the 

agencies believe that this phenomenon has changed and consumers will continue in the 

future to pay more attention to fuel economy. Based on projections from the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration that future gasoline prices will increase over coming decades 

due to global economic growth and oil demand, we believe that it is likely that consumer 

interest in and use of the fuel economy label will grow over time.9 In addition, given the 

increased awareness of consumers regarding climate change and air pollution, more 

comprehensive information on the emissions performance of vehicles, as required by 

EISA, could help consumers make more informed decisions on how a vehicle they buy 

may impact the environment. 

It is also important for the agencies to define labeling requirements for advanced 

vehicle technologies that are nearing commercialization. The existing label has long 

provided city and highway fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon (MPG) values, 

which the agencies believe are well recognized and understood by consumers, and which 

are widely used as metrics for comparing the efficiency of one vehicle to another. Since 

the late 1970s when the fuel economy label was first established by EPA as required 

under the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, over 99 percent of the 

automobiles sold have been conventional, internal-combustion engine vehicles that run 

on petroleum-based fuels (or a liquid fuel blend dominated by petroleum). When 

manufacturers produced different advanced technology vehicles, such as compressed 

natural gas vehicles, EPA has generally addressed the need for labels on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Over the next several model years, however, the agencies expect to see increasing 

numbers of EVs and PHEVs entering the marketplace. This proposal includes changes to 

the label to address some of the specific issues raised by the use of grid electricity as a 

fuel for EVs and PHEVs. These vehicles will be required to display labels containing the 

same kind of information as conventional vehicles, but some of that information may be 

better conveyed in different ways, and consumers may be interested in different 

information for these vehicles. For example, evaluating the performance of a vehicle that 

uses grid electricity as some or all of its fuel, or the cost of operating such a vehicle, 

presents unique challenges for making an informed comparison between different EVs 

and PHEVs, and between advanced technology vehicles and their conventional vehicle 

 

8

 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010. 

9

 Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA0383 (2010), May 11, 2010, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 15 of 339 

counterparts including gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles and hybrid gasoline electric 

vehicles (HEVs). 

The co-proposed label designs present two approaches for addressing the complex 

challenges associated with labels for these advanced technology vehicles, and the 

agencies encourage the public to comment on a wide range of possible solutions. The 

agencies recognize that this is only the first generation of EV and PHEV labels, and we 

expect to refine them over time as we have done with conventional vehicle labels. 

Additionally, the agencies recognize that other advanced technology vehicles, such as 

fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), may enter the marketplace in the near future as well, but for 

purposes of this first effort we have chosen to focus on EVs and PHEVs. Specific label 

requirements for other advanced technology vehicles will be developed at a later time as 

those vehicles enter the market. 

This joint proposal is designed to satisfy each agency’s statutory responsibilities 

in a manner that maximizes usefulness for the consumer, while avoiding unnecessary 

burden on the manufacturers who prepare the vehicle labels. Since 1977, EPA has 

required auto manufacturers to label all new automobiles,10 pursuant to EPCA.11 As 

amended, EPCA requires that labels shall contain the following information: 

(1) the fuel economy of the automobile; 

(2) the estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile; 

(3) the range of fuel economy of comparable vehicles of all manufacturers; 

(4) a statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to assist in making a 

comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers in 

that model year; 

(5) the amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax (“gas guzzler tax”) imposed 

on the sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

(26 U.S.C. 4064); and 

(6) other information required or authorized by the EPA Administrator that is 

related to the information required by (1) through (4) above.12 

In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),13 Congress 

required that NHTSA, in consultation with EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE), 

establish regulations to implement several new labeling requirements for new 

automobiles.14 NHTSA must develop a program that requires manufacturers to label new 

automobiles with information reflecting an automobile’s performance with respect to fuel 

economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions over the useful life of the automobile 

based on criteria provided by EPA.15 NHTSA must also develop a rating system that 

makes it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other 

 

10 An “automobile” is defined for these purposes as a “4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by 

alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways” and “rated at not 

more than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight.” See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3) and 32908(a)(1). 11 Pub. L. 94-163. 

12 49 U.S.C. 32908(b). 

13 Pub. L. 110-140. 

14 EISA Sec. 108, codified at 49 U.S.C. 32908(g). 

15 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(a)(i). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 16 of 339 

emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including designations of automobiles 

with the lowest GHG emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the highest fuel 

economy.16

Thus, either the basic label for automobiles needs to be expanded to include 

additional information on performance in terms of fuel economy, greenhouse gas and 

other emissions, or a new label needs to be required. NHTSA and EPA believe that a 

joint rulemaking to combine all of these elements into a single revised fuel economy label 

is the most appropriate way to meet the goals described above, rather than placing the 

information in two separate labels with duplicative and overlapping information, which 

could cause consumer confusion and impose unnecessary burden on the manufacturers.17 

 

Finally, given the goals described above and the need to provide additional 

information on the label, the agencies believe that the overall vehicle label design format 

and content should be reevaluated and could be improved. Simply including the 

additional information required under EISA for both conventional and advanced 

technology vehicles necessitates a review of the overall label design. 

As described above, the agencies view the purpose of the label as providing 

information that will be most useful for consumers in making informed decisions 

regarding the energy efficiency and emissions impacts of the vehicles they purchase. 

Providing information on energy, environmental performance, and cost can educate 

consumers in various ways. These metrics have the potential to help people who value 

this kind of information to make a more informed choice among different vehicles. It 

also has the potential to inform people who currently place less or even no value on this 

kind of information, but who may decide it is more important to them at some point in the 

future. NHTSA and EPA are mindful that this is a complicated issue and that there is no 

readily ascertainable metric to determine whether we have achieved this somewhat 

subjective and qualitative purpose. Therefore, EPA and NHTSA are co-proposing two 

options, and also taking comment on another alternative, that highlight a number of 

relevant issues on which we seek public comment. The agencies will consider all public 

comments and publish a final rule in the near future. 

B. A Comprehensive Research Program Informed the Development of 

Proposed Labels 

Since today’s proposal includes adding important new elements to the existing 

label as well as creating new labels for advanced technology vehicles, EPA and NHTSA 

embarked on a comprehensive and innovative research program beginning in the fall of 

2009. The research helped inform the development of the new labels being proposed and 

included three phases of consumer focus groups, a review of available literature, and a 

day long consultation with an expert panel of individuals who have introduced new 

products or have spearheaded national educational campaigns. 

 

16 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(a)(ii). 

17 The agencies also raised the issue of the upcoming labeling requirements in the recent joint rulemaking 

for MYs 2012-2016 CAFE and GHG standards for light-duty vehicles, 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 17 of 339 

 For the focus groups, the agencies decided to use a three-phase approach in order 

to accommodate the sheer amount of information intended to be covered in the groups, as 

well as to use each phase to inform the next phase to help evolve the overall label design 

in regard to both content and appearance. Focus groups were held beginning in late 

February through May 2010 in four cities: Charlotte, Houston, Chicago, and Seattle. 

Overall, 32 focus groups were convened with a total of 256 participants. We asked the 

focus groups about the following issues: 

• How they use the current fuel economy label 

• What feedback they could give us on potential new information and metrics for 

the label for conventional and advanced technology vehicles (EVs and PHEVs), 

and 

• What feedback they could give us, after reviewing draft labels, on designs and the 

level of information that makes sense, as well as overall preference for displaying 

information. 

The insights received from the focus groups were key for the agencies with regard 

to individual metrics that consumers wanted to see on labels and also with regard to 

effective label designs. Overall, focus groups indicated18 that redesigned labels must: 

 Create an immediate first impression for consumers 

 Be easy to read and understand quickly 

 Clearly identify vehicle technology (conventional, EV, PHEV) 

 Utilize color 

 Chunk information to allow people to deal with “more information” 

 Be consistent in content and design across technologies 

 Allow for comparison across technologies 

 Make it easy to identify the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly 

vehicles 

Following the focus group research, we assembled an expert panel for a one day 

consultation and asked them to give us feedback on the draft label designs the focus 

groups had helped create and to also assist us in identifying opportunities and strategies 

to provide more and better information to consumers so that they can more easily assess 

the costs, emissions, and energy efficiency of different vehicles. The experts came from 

a variety of fields in advertising and product development, and were chosen because they 

have led successful national efforts to introduce new products or have spearheaded 

national educational campaigns. After viewing the draft labels, the expert panel offered 

 

18 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010; Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R10-904, August 2010 ; and Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, 

EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 18 of 339 

the agencies the following insights and guidance19 that were key in developing one of the 

co-proposed label designs, including: 

 Keep it simple; we yearn for simplicity (fewer, bigger, better) 

 Consumers don’t act on details 

 Remember the reality of very short label viewing time - roll ratings and 

metrics up into a single score 

 Use cost savings information- a very strong consumer motivator 

 Develop a web site that would be launched in conjunction with the new label. 

This consumer-focused, user friendly web site would provide more specific 

information on the label including addition information on the letter grade, 

along with access to the tools, applications, and social media. 

Beyond these two core research elements, the agencies also undertook a 

comprehensive literature review20 and drafted and had peer reviewed an internet survey. 

The agencies intend to administer the survey concurrently with the release of this 

proposal, and the results will be made publicly available in the dockets for this proposal 

prior to issuing a final rule with the new label requirements. 

 The agencies also met with a number of stakeholders, including environmental 

organizations, auto manufacturers, and dealers, to gather their input on what the label 

should and should not contain, as well as to ascertain particular concerns.21 Comments 

received on labeling issues in the context of the joint rulemaking on fuel economy and 

GHG standards, 22 as well as for the 2006 fuel economy labeling rule, 23 have also been 

considered. 

C. When Would The Proposed Label Changes Take Effect? 

The agencies propose that the final label changes will take effect for model year 

(MY) 2012 vehicles, consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA 

that established harmonized federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards for new cars, 

sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks for model years 2012 through 2016.24 

For those advanced technology vehicles that will be introduced to the market prior to 

MY2012, EPA will work with individual manufacturers on a case-by-case basis to 

develop interim labels under EPA’s current regulations that can be used prior to MY2012 

and that are consistent with the proposed labels for advanced technology vehicles. 

 

19 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, 

August 2010.

20 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 

2010. 

21 Pursuant to DOT Order 2100.2, NHTSA will place a memorandum recording those meetings it attended, 

and attach documents submitted by stakeholders, as appropriate, when the information received formed a 

basis for this proposal, and the information can be made public, in the docket for this rulemaking. . 

22 Available at Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472. 

23 Available at Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. 

24 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 19 of 339 

D. What Are The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Label 

Changes? 

The primary costs associated with this proposed rule come from revisions to the 

fuel economy label and new testing requirements. As discussed in Section VII of this 

preamble, we estimate that the costs of this rule are likely to be in the range of $649,000 

– $2.8 million per year. This rule is not economically significant under Executive Order 

12866 or any DOT or EPA policies and procedures because it does not exceed $100 

million or meet other related standards. 

The primary benefits associated with this proposed rule come from any 

improvements in consumer decision-making that may lead to reduced vehicle and fuel 

costs for them. There may be additional effects on criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas 

emissions. At this time, EPA and NHTSA do not believe it is feasible to fully develop a 

complete benefits analysis of the potential benefits. 

EPA and NHTSA request comment on the assessment of the benefits and costs 

presented in Section VII below. 

E. Relationship of This Proposal to Other Federal and State Programs 

This proposal involves the addition of new information and design changes to 

conventional vehicle labels and the creation of specific labels for certain advanced 

vehicle technologies, but will not impact other important elements of the federal 

government’s fuel economy and GHG emissions regulatory programs. For example, this 

proposal will not affect the fuel economy compliance values used in NHTSA’s CAFE 

program, or the GHG emissions compliance values used in EPA’s GHG emissions 

control program. Nor will this proposal affect the methodology by which EPA generates 

the consumer fuel economy values used on the vehicle labels and provided at 

www.fueleconomy.gov. The result of the additional information, including 

environmental information, appearing on the label will necessitate that additional 

information also be displayed on this website in the future. Finally, this proposal does not 

affect the test procedures that are used by EPA and manufacturers to generate the federal 

government’s vehicle fuel economy and GHG emissions database. 

This proposal also does not affect the vehicle labels required by the California Air 

Resources Board which indicate relative ratings for “Smog” and “Global Warming,” in 

fulfillment of that state’s statutory requirements. The agencies are aware that the 

California labels provide information that is effectively duplicative with some of the 

information on the labels that will result from this rulemaking effort, although using 

different underlying rating methodologies and presentational approaches. It is the hope 

of both NHTSA and EPA that the Federal label can meet the CARB requirements and, 

thus, preclude the need for a separate set of labels. However, it is ultimately up to 

California to determine how to implement its statue and, thus, beyond the purview of this 

rulemaking to make any such determination. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 20 of 339 

F. History of Federal Fuel Economy Label Requirements 

The fuel economy label has evolved several times since it was first required by 

Congress in the 1970s, both in response to new statutory requirements and to changing 

policy objectives. There have been important changes in the past to make the label more 

technically accurate and understandable to consumers. The changes being proposed are 

consistent with past efforts by EPA to make the fuel economy label more consumer 

friendly and effective over time. This section provides a brief historical summary of the 

development of the fuel economy label. 

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established two 

primary fuel economy requirements: (1) fuel economy information, designed for public 

use, in the form of fuel economy labels posted on all new motor vehicles, and the 

publication of an annual booklet of fuel economy information to be made available free 

to the public by car dealers; and (2) calculation of a manufacturer's average fuel economy 

and compliance with a standard (later, this compliance program became known as the 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program). The responsibilities for these 

requirements were split between EPA, the Department of Transportation (DOT)25 and the 

Department of Energy (DOE). EPA is responsible for establishing the test methods and 

procedures both for determining the fuel economy estimates that are displayed on the 

labels and in the annual booklet, and for the calculation of a manufacturer's corporate 

average fuel economy. DOT, and by delegation, NHTSA, is responsible for administering 

the CAFE compliance program, which includes establishing standards, determining 

compliance, and assessing any penalties as needed. DOE is responsible for publishing 

and distributing the annual fuel economy information booklet. 

EPA published regulations implementing portions of the EPCA statute in 1976.26

The provisions in this regulation, effective with the 1977 model year, established the first 

fuel economy label along with the procedures to calculate fuel economy values for 

labeling and CAFE purposes that used the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or “city” test) 

and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or “highway” test) data as the basis for the 

calculations. At that time, the fundamental process for determining fuel economy was the 

same for labeling as for CAFE, except that the CAFE calculations combined the city and 

highway fuel economy values into a single number for manufacturers’ compliance 

purposes.27

After a few years of public exposure to the fuel economy estimates on the labels 

of new vehicles, it soon became apparent that drivers were disappointed by not often 

achieving these estimates on the road and expected them to be as accurate as possible. In 

1978, Congress recognized the concern about differences between EPA-estimated fuel 

 

25 The CAFE-related responsibilities of the Secretary of Transportation are delegated to the NHTSA 

Administrator at 49 CFR 1.50. 

26 41 FR 38685, promulgated at 40 CFR Part 600. 

27 EPCA requires that manufacturers simply comply with passenger car and light truck CAFE standards, it 

does not require separate city and highway standards for each type of automobile. Thus, EPA calculates 

the average fuel economy for a manufacturer by weighting and combining the results of each automobile 

on the separate city and highway cycles. See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 21 of 339 

economy values and actual consumer experience and mandated a study under section 404 

of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978.28 In February 1980, a set of 

hearings were conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on 

Environment, Energy, and National Resources. One of the recommendations in the 

subsequent report by the Subcommittee was that “EPA devise a new MPG system for 

labeling new cars and for the Gas Mileage Guide that provides fuel economy values, or a 

range of values, that most drivers can reasonably expect to experience.”29 

EPA commenced a rulemaking process in 1980 to revise its fuel economy 

labeling procedures, and analyzed a vast amount of in-use fuel economy data as part of 

that rulemaking.30 In 1984, EPA published new fuel economy labeling procedures that 

were applicable to 1985 and later model year vehicles.31 The decision was made to retain 

the FTP and highway test procedures, primarily because those procedures were also used 

for other purposes, including emissions certification and CAFE determination. Based on 

the in-use fuel economy data, however, it was evident that the final fuel economy values 

put on the labels needed to be adjusted downward in order to reflect more accurately 

consumers’ average fuel economy experience. The final rule, therefore, included 

downward adjustment factors for both the city and highway label fuel economy 

estimates. The city values (based on the raw FTP test data) were adjusted downward by 

10 percent and the highway values (likewise based on the raw highway test data) were 

adjusted downward by 22 percent.32

In the early 2000s, EPA again began investigating the accuracy of the fuel 

economy label estimates, and concluded that driving behavior (e.g., higher average speed 

and acceleration) and other factors (such as the use of ethanol as a gasoline blending 

agent) had changed significantly since the correction factors were implemented in 1985, 

leading again to a widening gap between real-world fuel economy and the label estimates 

that consumers saw when shopping for new vehicles. During the development of vehicle 

emissions regulations in the late 1990s, EPA had already conclusively found that the city 

and highway tests did not adequately represent real-world driving, and in December of 

2006 EPA finalized new test methods for calculating the fuel economy label values.33 

The 2006 final rule made three important changes. First, EPA’s new methods 

brought the miles per gallon estimates closer to consumers' actual fuel economy by 

including factors such as high speeds, quicker accelerations, air conditioning use, and 

driving in cold temperatures. These revised fuel economy estimates also reflect other 

conditions that influence fuel economy, like road grade, wind, tire pressure, load, and the 

 

28 Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, 404, November 9, 1978. 29 House Committee on Government Operations, ``Automobile Fuel Economy: EPA's Performance,'' 

Report 96-948, May 13, 1980. 

30 “Passenger Car Fuel Economy: EPA and Road,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA 

460/3-80-010, September, 1980, and ``Technical Support Report for Rulemaking Action: Light Duty 

Vehicle Fuel Economy Labeling,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA/AA/CTAB/FE81-6, October, 1980. 

31 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984, and 49 FR 48149, December 10, 1984. 32 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984. 

33 71 FR 77872, December 27, 2006. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 22 of 339 

effects of different fuel properties. The new estimates took effect with model year 2008 

vehicles. Second, EPA now requires fuel economy labels on certain heavier vehicles up 

to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, such as larger SUVs and vans. Manufacturers will 

be required to post fuel economy labels on these vehicles beginning with the 2011 model 

year. Third, to convey fuel economy information to the public more effectively, EPA 

updated the design and content of the label. The rule required that new labels be placed 

on vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2007. The fuel economy for each vehicle 

model continues to be presented to consumers on the label as city and highway MPG 

estimates. 

G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority 

1. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 

Under EPCA, EPA is responsible for developing the fuel economy labels that are 

posted on all new light duty cars and trucks sold in the U.S and beginning in MY 2011 all 

new medium duty trucks as well. Medium-duty passenger vehicles are a subset of 

vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight that includes large sport 

utility vehicles and vans, but not pickup trucks. EPCA requires the manufacturers of 

automobiles to attach the fuel economy label in a prominent place on each automobile 

manufactured in a model year and also requires auto dealerships to maintain the label on 

the automobile.34 

 EPCA specifies the information that is minimally required on every fuel 

economy label.35 As stated above, labels must include: 

• The fuel economy of the automobile, 

• The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile. 

• The range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all 

manufacturers, 

• A statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to assist in making 

a comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles manufactured by all 

manufacturers in that model year, 

• The amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax imposed on the sale of 

the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986;36 and 

• Other information required or authorized by the Administrator that is 

related to the information required [within the first four items]. 

Under the provision for “other information” EPA has previously required the 

statements “your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your 

vehicle,” and cost estimates “based on 15,000 miles at $2.80 per gallon” be placed on 

vehicle labels. 

 

34 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1). 

35 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F). 

36 26 U.S.C. 4064. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 23 of 339 

There are additional labeling requirements found in EPCA for “dedicated” 

automobiles and “dual fueled” automobiles. A dedicated automobile is an automobile 

that operates only on an alternative fuel.37 Dedicated automobile labels must also display 

the information noted above. 

A dual fueled vehicle is a vehicle which is “capable of operating on alternative 

fuel or a mixture of biodiesel and diesel fuel, and on gasoline or diesel fuel” for the 

minimum driving range (defined by the DOT).38 Dual fueled vehicle labels must: 

• Indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated on gasoline or 

diesel fuel. 

• Clearly identify the automobile as a dual fueled automobile. 

• Clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may be operated; and 

• Contain a statement informing the consumer that the additional 

information required by subsection (c)(2) [the information booklet] is 

published and distributed by the Secretary of Energy.39

EPCA defines “fuel economy” for purposes of these vehicles as “the average 

number of miles traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent 

amount of other fuel) used, as determined by the Administrator [of the EPA] under 

section 32904(c) [of this title].”40 

Additionally, EPA is required under EPCA to prepare a fuel economy booklet 

containing information that is “simple and readily understandable.”41 The booklet is 

commonly known as the annual “Fuel Economy Guide.” EPCA further instructs DOE to 

publish and distribute the booklet. EPA is required to “prescribe regulations requiring 

dealers to make the booklet available to prospective buyers.”42 While the booklet 

continues to be available in paper form, in 2006, EPA finalized regulations allowing 

manufacturers and dealers to make the Fuel Economy Guide available electronically to 

customers as an option.43

2. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)

 

37 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) defines “alternative fuel” as including —(A) methanol; (B) denatured ethanol; (C) 

other alcohols; (D) except as provided in subsection(b) of this section, a mixture containing at least 85 

percent of methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols by volume with gasoline or other fuels; (E) 

natural gas; (F) liquefied petroleum gas; (G) hydrogen; (H) coal derived liquid fuels; (I) fuels (except 

alcohol) derived from biological materials; (J) electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and (K) 

any other fuel the Secretary of Transportation prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum 

and that would yield substantial energy security and environmental benefits.” 

38 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9), (c). 

39 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3). 

40 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(11). 

41 49 U.S.C. 32908(c). 

42 Id. 

43 71 FR 77915, Dec. 27, 2006. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 24 of 339 

The 2007 passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) amended 

EPCA by introducing additional new vehicle labeling requirements, to be implemented 

by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 44 While EPA 

retained responsibility for establishing test methods and calculation procedures for 

determining the fuel economy estimates of automobiles for the purpose of posting fuel 

economy information on labels and in an annual Fuel Economy Guide, NHTSA gained 

responsibility for requiring automobiles to be labeled with additional performance 

metrics and rating systems to help consumers compare vehicles to one another more 

easily at the point of purchase. 

Specifically, and for purposes of this rulemaking, subsection “(g) Consumer 

Information” was added to 49 U.S.C. 32908. Subsection (g), in relevant part, directed the 

Secretary of Transportation (by delegation, the NHTSA Administrator) to “develop and 

implement by rule a program to require manufacturers – 

(A) to label new automobiles sold in the United States with – 

(i) information reflecting an automobile’s performance on the basis 

of criteria that the [EPA] Administrator shall develop, not later 

than 18 months after the date of the of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel 

Economy Act, to reflect fuel economy and greenhouse gas and 

other emissions over the useful life of the automobile: 

(ii) a rating system that would make it easy for consumers to 

compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions 

of automobiles at the point of purchase, including a designation of 

automobiles— 

(I) with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the 

useful life of the vehicles; and 

(II) the highest fuel economy...” 

 Thus, both EPA and NHTSA have authority over labeling requirements related to 

fuel economy and environmental information under EPCA and EISA, respectively. In 

order to implement that authority in the most coordinated and efficient way, the agencies 

are jointly proposing the revised labels presented below.

II. Proposed Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Content (Metrics and Rating 

Systems) 

This section discusses the elements that the agencies are proposing for the fuel 

economy label. Section A discusses the range of options considered and proposed for 

“conventional” petroleum-fueled vehicles (i.e., those powered solely by gasoline or diesel 

fuel). Current hybrid vehicles, which are fundamentally gasoline-fueled vehicles,45 will 

continue to use the same label as other gasoline vehicles, just as they do today. Many of 

the approaches discussed in Section A, such as the rating systems, will apply across all 

 

44 P.L. 110-140. 

45 Current hybrid vehicles obtain their electric power from their onboard conventional gasoline engine and 

energy captured through regenerative braking. Thus, the vehicle’s energy source is still gasoline. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 25 of 339 

vehicles, including advanced technology vehicles. Section B specifically discusses the 

special cases of advanced technology vehicles. These vehicles – such as electric vehicles 

(EVs) and plug-in gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) 46 – are one of the key 

reasons we are proposing new regulations. The agencies are concerned that current label 

requirements do not adequately address these vehicles, and we are seeking to develop 

labels that are useful and understandable to consumers, as well as equitable across the 

range of different vehicles and technological approaches. Section C addresses some of 

the less common fuels and fuel combinations for which label templates must ultimately 

be developed, such as compressed natural gas and methanol. 

A. Conventional Gasoline, Diesel and Hybrid Vehicles 

The complete effect of this proposal would be a single new label, which replaces 

the existing fuel economy label and which contains more information than is currently 

displayed, even in the case of conventional petroleum-fueled vehicles. An example of 

the current label is shown here to provide a basis for comparison with the proposed 

labels. 

The new single label is the result of EPA and NHTSA’s decision that it is good 

public policy to consolidate label requirements called for by EPCA and EISA. This label 

would contain information not only on a new vehicle’s fuel economy, annual fuel cost, 

and range of fuel economy within class, but also, for the first time, information on a new 

vehicle’s fuel consumption, emissions, and comparative rating information, as required 

by statute. This expansion of the role of the label beyond fuel economy information 

reflects the new EISA requirements, which are premised on the concept that greenhouse 

gas and other environmental information is also in the public interest. 

 

46 Definitions for hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles can be found in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1803-01. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 26 of 339 

In developing this proposal, the agencies came up with two distinct approaches 

for conveying information on the label. While both approaches rely on the same 

underlying data and both meet EPCA and EISA requirements, they differ in how they 

present and emphasize the information. One approach is more traditional, focusing 

primarily on MPG values and secondarily on annual fuel cost, but adding new elements, 

such as environmental information. A label using this approach would look familiar to 

the public, with a style similar to the existing label. Requiring a label based on the 

traditional approach assumes that potential vehicle purchasers will use the information 

that is most meaningful to them, whether that is MPG, fuel cost, or other values. For 

example, participants in the focus groups leading up to this proposal indicated that, when 

considering the current fuel economy label, nearly all used the city and highway MPG 

values almost exclusively, despite the presence of other data elements on the label; some 

also used annual fuel cost and within-class comparison information.47 

 

The other approach uses the same data, but shifts the emphasis to a single, more 

prominent value that reflects fuel consumption and its counterpart, greenhouse gas 

emissions, using a format the consumers will easily recognize - a letter grade. The 

associated numerical values and other required elements would remain on the label, but 

with much less prominence. This approach makes it simpler for the consumer to identify 

those vehicles that use less oil and have a lesser environmental impact and more clearly 

expands the role of the label beyond fuel economy information. Many of the focus group 

participants indicated that they trusted the EPA to determine which of these factors were 

important, and the agencies believe that consumers might be more likely to consider a 

vehicle with higher fuel economy and lesser environmental impact if they were provided 

with a simpler label.48 

The agencies believe each approach has merit and that the public will be wellserved by having both be fully considered; therefore, EPA and NHTSA are co-proposing 

two label designs based on these two approaches, without either being the primary 

proposal. NHTSA and EPA expect that comments will provide valuable insight on these 

two proposed label designs, and seek comment on the merits and drawbacks of each, 

recognizing that the label design ultimately finalized may draw on elements from all the 

labels presented in this proposal. The labels are presented in Section III. Label designs 1 

and 2 are co-proposed, with Label 1 being the letter grade approach and Label 2 being the 

more traditional approach. Label 3, on which comment is also sought, is an alternative 

version of the traditional approach. 

 The subsections that follow describe each of the data elements presented on the 

labels, how the agencies considered them, and how we are proposing that they be 

displayed on each of the co-proposed labels. 

 

47 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010,,,p. 10. 

48 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010, p. 36. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 27 of 339 

1. Fuel Economy Performance

 Since 1977, the EPA fuel economy label has represented the fuel economy 

performance of a vehicle with estimates of city and highway miles per gallon (MPG). 

With more than 30 years of consumers seeing these estimates as the most prominent 

values displayed on the fuel economy labels, it is not surprising that the consumer 

research conducted as part of this rulemaking has revealed a strong attachment to city and 

highway MPG values. A combined city and highway MPG value was first placed on the 

label starting with model year 2008 -- as part of the graphic showing the combined MPG 

value of the vehicle compared with other vehicles in the same class49 but, even prior to 

this, the combined MPG value has always been a key input to estimating the annual fuel 

cost value required on the label.50 

Representing the vehicle’s fuel economy performance on the label with an 

estimate of miles per gallon is a core element of the fuel economy information 

requirements of EPCA, which specifically states that the label must display “the fuel 

economy of the automobile” and defines “fuel economy” as “the average number of 

miles travelled...for each gallon of gasoline..”51 In addition, EPA and NHTSA have 

determined that continuing to display the fuel economy values on the label would also 

meet the new requirements put in place by EISA that call for a label “reflecting an 

automobile’s performance [based on criteria determined by EPA] to reflect fuel 

economy...over the useful life of the vehicle.”52 Because vehicle fuel economy depends 

primarily on fundamental vehicle design characteristics that do not change over time, the 

agencies believe that fuel economy remains essentially stable throughout the life of 

properly-maintained vehicles. Thus the agencies believe that the current test methods 

that determine label values for new vehicles will meet the EISA requirements by 

providing reasonable estimates of fuel economy performance for the full useful life of a 

vehicle. Finally, consumers have shown a strong familiarity with and preference for 

MPG values, and have consistently indicated that these values are used as part of the 

vehicle purchase decision. 

For these reasons, the agencies are proposing to continue to provide mile per 

gallon estimates to consumers, but with some changes relative to the current label, and 

with markedly different approaches on the two co-proposed labels. 

The agencies recognize that the focus group research suggested that consumers 

have a strong familiarity with and preference for the city and highway fuel economy 

values53 (although this preference was much stronger for conventional vehicles than for 

 

49 The vehicle classes are defined in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 600.315-08 and provide a basis for 

comparing a vehicle’s fuel economy to that of other vehicles in its class as required by statute. See the 

discussion in section VI.C for a detailed discussion of the vehicle class structure. 

50 Combined fuel economy is a harmonic average of the City and Highway MPG values, with the City 

value weighted 55% and the Highway value weighted 45%. See 71 FR 77904, December 27, 2006. 51 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(A). 

52 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i). 

53 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010, p. 10. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 28 of 339 

advanced technology vehicles; in those cases perhaps the complexity of the labels 

encouraged them to part with some of the numbers on the label). Focus group 

participants who argued strongly for separate city and highway MPG values on the label 

often stated, for example, that most of their driving is either city or highway, and that a 

combined city-highway MPG value might make it harder for them to determine what 

MPG they should reasonably expect for that vehicle.54 The agencies believe that this 

apparent preference was formed in large part because of EPA’s decision to present these 

as the dominant figures on the label for decades, not because consumers demanded these 

metrics 33 years ago. Had EPA been presenting the combined number as the dominant 

figure on the label since 1977, we might expect to see a great deal of familiarity with and 

understanding of that particular value today. However, the distinction between city and 

highway driving does not address the key variables that could impact energy 

consumption for alternative technologies, such as ambient temperature. Thus, the 

agencies believe that, for labeling purposes, the city/highway distinction may be a less 

relevant metric than in the past. 

Thus with Label 1, NHTSA and EPA propose that the MPG values be 

significantly reduced in prominence (i.e., smaller font and “below the fold” location on 

the label), with the letter grade rating assuming the predominant role. Given space 

constraints and the amount of information that is required to be provided on the label, 

continuing to display MPG estimates with the same or similar prominence would be 

likely unnecessary and possibly untenable. The city and highway MPG values would be 

available for those who wish to use them, but the rating assumes the key role of 

informing the public about the relative energy use and carbon emissions of a vehicle. 

The agencies believe that this de-emphasis on MPG values would have two primary 

benefits: first, the rating’s predominance should encourage consumers to use it rather 

than the specific MPG values to compare across vehicle technology types (particularly as 

MPG values become less meaningful for vehicles that do not run, or only partially run, on 

fuels dispensed by the gallon); and second, to address the non-linearity of MPG with 

respect to energy use, emissions, and cost, discussed further in Section II A 2, which 

becomes more important as significantly higher mileage vehicles are poised to enter the 

marketplace. 

The agencies are proposing a different approach for Label 2, in which the 

combined MPG value is displayed prominently, with separate city and highway values 

continuing to be shown on the label, but as subordinate values. This approach focuses 

attention on MPG since it is the metric that consumers are the most familiar with and 

have come to utilize on the label. However, it downplays the separate city and highway 

value in favor of a single, combined MPG, because the agencies believe that continuing 

to highlight multiple pieces of fuel economy information with the same level of 

prominence could make it more difficult for consumers to compare vehicles, particularly 

across technology types, where MPG becomes a less meaningful metric. A similar 

approach is taken on Label 3. 

 

54 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010, p. 10. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 29 of 339 

The agencies seek comment generally on these two approaches to displaying fuel 

economy performance information on the labels. Specifically, comment is sought on 

whether or not the labels that emphasize combined city/highway MPG values over 

separate city and highway MPG values are helpful to consumers, and why or why not. If 

combined MPG is preferred, comment is sought on whether or not city and highway 

values should continue to be displayed, and why or why not. 

2. Fuel Consumption

While miles per gallon is statutorily mandated for fuel economy labels and has 

appeared on the label for several decades, the agencies have some concern that it can be a 

potentially misleading comparative tool for consumers, particularly when it is used as a 

proxy for fuel costs. The problem can be easily illustrated by the following figure, which 

shows the non-linear relationship between gallons used over a given distance and miles 

per gallon. It can be seen that the difference in gallons it takes to go 1,000 miles between 

10 and 15 MPG (about 33 gallons) is substantially greater than the difference in gallons it 

takes to go the same distance between 30 and 35 MPG (about 5 gallons). In other words, 

even if consumers clearly understand that higher MPG is better, those comparing vehicles 

with relatively low MPG values may not know that MPG differences that appear to be 

small, even one or two MPG, may actually have very different fuel consumption values, 

and that selecting the slightly higher MPG vehicle could actually result in significantly 

less fuel used, thus saving a considerable amount of money. Fuel consumption numbers, 

unlike MPG, relate directly to the amount of fuel used. Mathematically, they represent 

gallon per mile, instead of miles per gallon. Not coincidentally, they also relate directly 

to the amount of CO2 emitted, because the grams of CO2 produced are directly 

proportional to gallons of fuel combusted. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 30 of 339 

Illustration of "MPG Illusion"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Miles per Gallon

Gallons per 1,000 Miles

33 gals

5 gals

This so-called “MPG illusion,” which has been widely written about by a number 

of economists to illustrate why MPG is a flawed measure of how a vehicle’s efficiency 

relates to fuel costs,55 was raised as an issue during the development of the 2006 fuel 

economy labeling rule. Some vehicle manufacturers suggested at the time that it may be 

more meaningful to express fuel efficiency in terms of consumption (e.g., gallons per 

mile or per 100 miles) rather than in terms of economy (miles per gallon).56 Fuel 

consumption is the primary metric used in Europe, and the Canadian fuel economy labels 

report both MPG and a consumption metric (liters per 100 kilometers). Because a few 

stakeholders expressed an interest in a fuel consumption metric at the time, EPA 

requested comments on a gallons-per-mile metric and how it could be best used and 

presented publicly, such as whether it should be included in the Fuel Economy Guide. 

The comments received in response to this request were mixed. Public Citizen, 

on the one hand, responded that, while there may be some merit to including a fuel 

consumption metric, consumers are comfortable with MPG. Any change, they argued, 

should be carefully deliberated and involve a massive public outreach campaign to 

 

55 Allcott, H., Mullainathan, S., "Energy: Behavior and Energy Policy," Science, March 5, 2010, available 

at:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/327/5970/1204; Larrick, R.L., Soll, J.B., "The MPG 

Illusion," Science, June 20, 2008, available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5883/1593; 

McArdle, M., "Department of Mathematical Illusion," The Atlantic, December 24, 2007, available at: 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2007/12/department-of-mathematical-illusion/2425/. 

56 US EPA Response to Comments: Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles, EPA-420-R-06-016, Dec 

2006, pp. 60-61. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 31 of 339 

educate consumers.57 They also suggested that the estimated annual fuel cost provides 

information derived from consumption values and is thus a suitable proxy for 

consumption. Toyota, in contrast, commented that fuel consumption is a more 

meaningful measure than MPG for expressing fuel efficiency, while acknowledging 

EPA’s statutory limitations. They noted - as have many others - that the MPG metric is 

fundamentally nonlinear in relation to issues of consumer interest, such as cost of fuel or 

gallons used, and noted that anecdotal evidence shows that the nonlinear aspects of MPG 

can lead to consumer confusion. Toyota concluded that “...this is a matter on which the 

EPA is obligated to educate the public as fuel consumption, not fuel economy, is a direct 

reflection of the environmental impact of vehicles in use.”58 

EPA responded to these comments in the 2006 final rule by concluding that 

switching to a consumption metric without a long-term consumer education program 

would cause confusion and that, absent Congressional action, the fuel economy labels 

would still have to continue to report MPG. EPA also agreed with commenters that the 

estimated annual fuel cost was a consumption-based metric which conveys essentially the 

same information (although the estimated annual fuel cost on the label is not without its 

own limitations, as described below). 

To allow further consideration of this issue, the consumer focus groups conducted 

for this rulemaking were asked to specifically explore the MPG illusion. Most 

participants were unconvinced that consumption should be included on the label with 

primary prominence and, although many were unopposed to having it as additional 

information, it was unclear whether it would add value from their perspective.59 This 

was the case regardless of the consumption metric tested, ranging from gallons per 100 

miles to annual gallons consumed. 

However, there is general interest from a number of parties in the inclusion of a 

fuel consumption metric on the label. The agencies, as well, believe that it is important 

to introduce the concept of consumption to enable consumers to more accurately consider 

fuel use and costs during the vehicle purchase process. Thus, the agencies propose to 

introduce such a metric along with the MPG values, expecting that, over time, and with 

some education, consumers will begin to understand energy consumption and the direct 

connection it has with the fuel costs and environmental impacts of the vehicle. EPA is 

therefore proposing to include an estimate of gallons per 100 miles on the label under its 

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F) authority to require other information related to fuel economy 

on the label, and requests comment on doing so, as well as on alternative options for 

reflecting fuel consumption, such as annual gallons consumed.60 For consumers to use a 

 

57 Public Citizen Comments on Proposed Fuel Economy Labeling Of Motor Vehicles, EPA-HQ-OAR2005-0169-0123.1, Apr 3, 2006, p.4. 

58 Toyota Motor Corporation Comments on Proposed Fuel Economy Labeling Of Motor Vehicles, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0169-0118.1, Mar 31, 2006, p.7.

59 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010, p. 17. 

60 This proposal is being made under EPA’s authority to require other information related to fuel economy 

on the label, as described in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 32 of 339 

consumption number, however, EPA and NHTSA believe that a comprehensive 

education campaign would have to accompany the roll-out of new labels. 

The agencies also seek comment on the specifics of displaying a consumption 

metric on the two labels being co-proposed. Although the label may provide city and 

highway MPG values as well as a combined city/highway MPG, we are proposing to 

require only the combined city/highway consumption value on the label. The agencies 

are concerned that requiring a consumption value corresponding to every MPG value 

would lead to an undesirable proliferation of numbers on the label. 

3. Greenhouse Gas Performance 

 In addition to the fuel economy performance information that has been provided 

on the labels since 1977, Congress directed NHTSA, through EISA, to require new 

vehicles to also be labeled with information reflecting their greenhouse gas performance, 

which would be determined on the basis of criteria provided by EPA to NHTSA. As with 

fuel economy, the GHG performance information would be per vehicle model type. EPA 

hereby proposes the criteria for determining greenhouse gas performance, addressing the 

greenhouse gases to be incorporated, the emissions sources to include, the underlying test 

procedures, and the specific metric to be used. The agencies seek comment on whether 

these criteria, as described below, are reasonable and appropriate for determining the 

greenhouse gas performance of new vehicles. For purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA is 

proposing that the greenhouse gas performance element of the label be based on these 

criteria. These same greenhouse gas performance values would also be used as the basis 

for the proposed greenhouse gas rating systems. 

With regard to the greenhouse gases to be covered, the agencies propose that the 

label include greenhouse gas performance information solely on the basis of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) emissions, which typically constitute approximately 95% of the tailpipe 

emissions of greenhouse gases. Including emission levels of the greenhouse gases 

methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) along with CO2 would not provide additional 

differentiation between vehicles. This is because, for purposes of compliance with EPA’s 

GHG standards beginning in model year 2012, CH4 and N2O values would be based on 

emission factors–that is, set values applied to each vehicle, rather than direct 

measurements. Because these values would be set at the same level for all vehicles, the 

agencies do not believe that including them would provide consumers with additional 

useful information. 

Similarly, the agencies propose that the greenhouse gas information be based on 

CO2 emissions for the vehicle model type, rather than the carbon-related exhaust 

emissions (CREE) methodology used to determine fuel consumption for CAFE programs 

and compliance with the light duty greenhouse gas requirements. The use of CREE adds 

a level of complexity that, while useful for compliance purposes, may not be beneficial to 

public understanding of the relative differences in GHG emissions between vehicles 

because the levels of other carbon-related emissions are low relative to CO2 emissions. 

Although the agencies propose that the greenhouse gas information on the label be based 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 33 of 339 

only on CO2, we also seek comment on whether and, if so, how, the other greenhouse 

gases and carbon-related emissions should be included. 

Regarding the underlying test procedures to be used to determine the vehiclespecific GHG performance information for the labels, the agencies propose that the CO2

values presented on the label be based on the five-cycle test procedures that are currently 

utilized for fuel economy labeling purposes.61 These test procedures measure rates of 

tailpipe CO2 and other emissions, which form the basis of the fuel economy values 

currently used for vehicle labeling. The five-cycle test procedures have been used for 

labeling since model year 2008, and have significantly improved the correlation between 

label values for MPG and those seen in actual use. Manufacturers could thus calculate 

CO2 emission rates using the same approach that they use for label fuel economy values, 

which the agencies know to be well-correlated with actual performance in use. More 

specifically, if a manufacturer uses the "derived five cycle" method for determining MPG 

for fuel economy labeling, they would use the same method for determining CO2 for 

labeling purposes. The city and highway CO2 emissions test results would then be used 

in the derived five-cycle equations, which the EPA has converted from a MPG basis to a 

CO2 basis for this purpose. Similarly, vehicle model types that are using the "full five 

cycle" method for fuel economy labeling would use the CO2 results from those tests for 

purposes of fuel economy labeling. The agencies are therefore proposing that 

manufacturers use the same five-methodology currently utilized for fuel economy 

labeling purposes for determining GHG values for purposes of the new label. 

As far as emission sources to include, NHTSA and EPA propose that the 

greenhouse gas emissions represented on the label include only vehicle tailpipe 

emissions,62 and do not account for any GHG emissions generated upstream of the 

vehicle. This approach is also consistent with the vehicle GHG emissions compliance 

levels recently adopted by EPA, which treat GHG emissions for electric operation as zero 

up to a cumulative production cap per manufacturer.63 

When exploring this issue with focus groups, the agencies found that most 

participants did not consider the issue of upstream emissions either way. A few raised it 

when they noted that an electric vehicle indicated zero emissions, and suggested that 

these vehicles did cause some emissions at the power plant, which should be represented 

on the label.64 On further discussion, they generally determined that it would be 

challenging for the label to meaningfully represent the range of emissions from power 

plants operated on different fuels, and suggested that this information was obtainable 

 

61 40 CFR part 600.210-08. 

62 The agencies seek comment on the potential inclusion of GHG emissions reflecting from A/C leakage 

credits, as described later in this section. 

63 EPA placed a cumulative production cap on the total production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs for which an 

individual manufacturer can claim the zero grams/mile compliance value during model years 2012-2016. 

The cumulative production cap will be 200,000 vehicles, except that those manufacturers that sell at least 

25,000 EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs in MY 2012 will have a cap of 300,000 vehicles for MY 2012-2016. See 

75 FR 25436 (May 7, 2010) 

64 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010, p.42. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 34 of 339 

from other sources.65 Given space constraints and the difficulty of explaining the 

potential range of upstream emissions due to different fuel sources, participants tended to 

agree that this issue could be adequately addressed by a statement on the label indicating 

that the CO2 values on the label represented vehicle tailpipe emissions only. The label 

designs presented in this NPRM include the words “Tailpipe Only” next to the CO2 value 

presented; the agencies seek comment on whether this wording will be readily and 

uniformly understood to mean that upstream GHG emissions are not being reflected on 

the label, or whether other, more direct wording might be clearer and more helpful to 

consumers. 

Aside from tailpipe CO2, the agencies are not proposing, but seek comment on the 

inclusion of an additional factor in the GHG performance used for labeling: air 

conditioning (A/C) credits generated by a manufacturer under the light duty vehicle GHG 

requirements. Air conditioning (A/C) systems contribute to GHG emissions in two ways. 

Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, which are powerful GHGs, can leak from the A/C 

system (direct A/C emissions). Operation of the A/C system also places an additional 

load on the engine, which results in additional CO2 tailpipe emissions (indirect A/C 

related emissions). The efficiency-related A/C impacts are accounted for in the fivecycle tests utilized for fuel economy labeling and proposed as the basis for GHG labeling 

purposes. However, EPA and NHTSA are considering whether allowing manufacturers 

that generate credits towards their GHG compliance obligation by reducing A/C leakagerelated GHGs should be allowed to factor these credits into the CO2 value displayed on 

the label and used as the basis for the GHG rating. Allowing manufacturers to factor A/C 

credits into the GHG performance metric on the label would reward them for making A/C 

leakage improvements, but it would also cause the GHG performance value and the fuel 

economy performance value to diverge, and would impact the methodology for any 

rating system that combines GHGs and fuel economy. Because A/C-related reductions 

are not “tailpipe,” including leakage improvements in the tailpipe emissions could be 

misleading and inaccurate. If the final label includes other non-tailpipe emissions, the 

agencies may consider incorporating A/C leakage improvements. EPA and NHTSA seek 

comment on a number of issues: whether including A/C leakage adjustments would lead 

to widening the gap between what is on the label and what consumers get in the real 

world; whether and, if so, how, to allow the use of A/C credits for the purposes of 

labeling, with specific focus on the methodology and how the labels might display the 

inclusion of A/C leakage credits if the agencies decided to allow their use. 

EPA and NHTSA are proposing to use grams per mile as the metric to display 

greenhouse gas performance information on the label, which would be consistent with the 

metric used for GHG emission standards and compliance for light duty vehicles. The 

agencies believe that this metric is also consistent with requirements in 49 U.S.C. 

32908(g)(1)(A) that performance reflect emissions “over the useful life of the 

automobile.” As with fuel economy, the agencies do not at this time expect notable 

deterioration of greenhouse gas emissions levels over a vehicle’s useful life. However, 

the agencies seek comment on alternative approaches to convey GHG performance 

 

65 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010, p. 42. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 35 of 339 

information, such as tons per year, using an approach parallel to that discussed in section 

II for annual cost information. 

4. Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating Systems 

EISA requires that the label include a “rating system that would make it easy for 

consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions of 

automobiles at the point of purchase, including a designation of the automobiles with the 

lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the highest fuel 

economy....”66 The two co-proposed label designs present two variations on ratings 

systems for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, based on two interpretations of 

the statutory language. These two approaches - separate absolute ratings for fuel 

economy and greenhouse gases, and a relative rating that combines the two factors - are 

not mutually exclusive, and a label could contain one or both. 

In developing rating systems, the agencies are cognizant of the focus group 

testing conducted for this proposal, in which it appeared that many participants did not 

rely on any rating system. Perhaps due to their familiarity with the prominently 

displayed MPG numbers, many participants relied initially and sometimes exclusively on 

MPG or MPGe label values to compare vehicles to one another. 67 Given this result, the 

agencies are proposing two different approaches to the ratings. 

The first approach is displayed at the bottom of Label 1 and Label 2: separate 

ratings scales for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, bounded by specific 

values for the “best” and the “worst” vehicles, and with specific fuel economy and GHG 

emissions values for the vehicle model type in question identified in the appropriate 

location on the scale. The scales on Label 2 are essentially larger versions of those on 

Label 1, with the addition of a within-class indicator on the fuel economy scale to meet 

the EPCA68 requirement for comparison across comparable vehicles. 

This variation - absolute rating scales - directly utilizes the actual fuel economy 

and CO2 performance values per vehicle model type to define the rating, which the 

agencies believe has both potential benefits and drawbacks. The agencies believe that, by 

rating vehicles on an absolute scale, this approach clearly meets the text of the EISA 

requirement for providing fuel economy and GHG performance information and 

indicating highest fuel economy and lowest GHG vehicles. The rating system allows the 

consumer looking at the label on the dealer’s lot to identify precisely the highest and 

lowest fuel economy values available, the lowest and highest GHG emissions values 

available, and where the vehicle bearing the label falls in relation to these extremes. 

When this variation was presented in focus groups, some participants liked the level of 

detail provided by absolute rating scales and found it helpful in understanding how a 

 

66 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii). 

67 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010, p. 36. 

68 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 36 of 339 

vehicle compared to the “best” and “worst” vehicles available, although others found it to 

be more detail than they wanted or did not pay attention to this information on the label.69

However, even for those consumers who appreciate this level of detail in 

comparing vehicles by fuel economy and GHG emissions, there is the possibility that the 

“best” will change over the course of the model year and that the MPG or gram/mile 

value at the end of the scale may no longer be accurate. Highest and lowest values to be 

used on the scale would be provided to manufacturers by EPA prior to the start of the 

model year via annual guidance. Because these values will be based on the previous 

model year plus any additional information regarding the upcoming new sales fleet 

available to the EPA, they are expected to be relatively accurate. However, because they 

are projected values, the introduction during the model year of any new and unexpected 

vehicles not previously identified to EPA could potentially cause inaccuracy in the end 

points of the rating scales. In general, because of the expected introduction of electric 

vehicles, which have no tailpipe CO2 emissions and thus anchor one end of the scale at 

zero, and because of the expectation that, for the foreseeable future, one or more vehicles 

will anchor the opposite end at a relatively constant level, the agencies believe that the 

end points will likely remain relatively constant, but they may not remain exactly

constant. The agencies therefore seek comment on how significant this potential for 

inaccuracy could be on consumers’ ability to use the absolute rating scales to compare 

fuel economy and GHG emissions across vehicles, and on whether commenters believe 

the labels would have to be revised in order to meet the statutory requirement every time 

a new “best” vehicle was introduced if they were not accommodated by the end points. 

The second approach to a rating system is also displayed on Label 1: a combined 

rating scale for fuel economy and GHG emissions, shown in the form of a letter grade. 

Because vehicles that are low in CO2 emissions have inherently good fuel economy (and 

vice versa), and because CO2 emissions are the primary determinant of fuel economy 

using EPA test procedures, vehicles would generally tend to have the same “score” for 

fuel economy as for GHG emissions. Thus, if the ratings are equivalent, as a practical 

matter, it would be consistent with the statutory requirement to provide a single, 

combined rating system. 

The proposed letter grade scale would range from A+ to D, including plus and 

minus designations to provide more opportunities for improvement. All vehicles would 

receive a “passing” grade - that is, the ratings would not include an “E” or “F” grade - 

because all vehicles must meet CAA requirements in order to be sold, and the agencies 

do not wish to convey otherwise. Additionally, the “A+” vehicles - with associated text 

stating the range of letter grades - will indicate which vehicles are the “best,” thus, 

meeting the requirement that the label designate highest fuel economy and lowest 

greenhouse gas vehicles. 

This variation of a fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating system was suggested 

by the expert panel and was not presented in focus groups, but many focus group 

 

69 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010, p. 41. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 37 of 339 

participants favored the simplification of information presented when possible, and the 

agencies believe that such a well-known rating approach will be immediately 

recognizable by the majority of consumers. The agencies are also hopeful that a rating 

system as simple as a letter grade may encourage consumers to rely more on the rating 

system itself in making purchasing decisions, rather than on, for example, MPG numbers, 

which are subject to the “MPG illusion” issue discussed above. 

 A letter grade allows vehicles purchasers to make a comparative assessment 

among vehicles with different grades, consolidating information so that consumers might 

more easily assess the GHG emissions and fuel economy of different vehicles and make 

fully informed decisions. The agencies also request comment on whether any vehicle 

should receive a grade of A+ or whether this might lead to mistaken consumer conclusion 

that the vehicle has no energy or environmental impacts. 

As noted above, CO2 emissions are directly measured by EPA and form the basis 

for calculating the fuel efficiency of the vehicle; using CO2 as the basis for the rating is 

the most direct methodological approach and will avoid any rounding discrepancies that 

could occur from converting to MPG and then to fuel consumption. It also avoids the 

need to adjust the MPG thresholds by fuel type to account for differences in the energy 

content of fuel. Utilizing CO2 as the controlling factor in the rating thresholds is a 

practical consideration and is not meant to imply that GHG emissions are more important 

than energy use; both are relevant considerations and are viewed by the agencies as 

equally important under the rating system.70 

The agencies propose to base this rating system approach on the range of CO2

emissions for the projected fleet, placing the middle of the rating scale at the combined 5-

cycle CO2 emissions rate for the median vehicle,71 with equal-sized increments of CO2

assigned to each grade or rating.72 The higher-GHG end of the scale would therefore be 

twice the CO2 emissions rate of the median value, although, effectively, any vehicle 

 

70 The direct relationship between CO2 and fuel consumption breaks down to some extent for vehicles with 

electric operation. For these vehicles, tailpipe CO2 emissions are zero; however, energy is consumed by the 

vehicle and an energy efficiency value other than infinity can be assigned. Nevertheless, given that electric 

drive trains are currently much more efficient than those for conventional vehicles, the relationship between 

those vehicles emitting zero CO2 and having the highest energy efficiency holds true at the present time. 

This approach may need to reassessed in the future if efficiencies of electric drive and conventional 

vehicles begin to approach each other, or if it is desired to differentiate between the efficiencies of electricpowered vehicles, but should not be a necessary consideration in the foreseeable future. 71 Median vehicle is determined by vehicle model type, with model type as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-08. 

72 The agencies evaluated several potential methodologies for creating this rating system besides equal 

increments of CO2. We rejected an approach that would create the rating system based on establishing 

equal size categories for the ratings using miles per gallon – that is, taking the range of MPG of the vehicle 

fleet and dividing that range into ten equal segments. Given that the fleet will soon see vehicles that 

achieve MPG-equivalent values of 75 to 100, the agencies were concerned that this methodology would 

create a situation where a vehicle such as the 2010 Toyota Prius (which gets a combined MPG of 50 MPG) 

would receive only an average rating. Using this method would result in the vast majority of vehicles 

receiving a rating well below the middle rating, which would not seem to be an appropriate result of a 

rating system. However, the agencies seek comment on whether a combined rating system based on MPG 

instead of on CO2 might be developed in a way that avoided these results. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 38 of 339 

higher than this level would also receive the lowest rating. Under such an approach, the 

median value would become more stringent over time as a result of GHG emissions 

requirements and, thus, the entire scale would shift toward lower GHG levels. Unless a 

vehicle model reduced its rate of CO2 emissions across the model years, its ratings would 

gradually drop over time. This approach would be consistent with both the evolution of 

fuel economy and emission requirements, and the public expectation that products evolve 

over time. The CO2 thresholds associated with each rating would be determined on an 

annual basis and provided through guidance in advance of the model year. EPA would 

require that manufacturers use the ratings from the prior year if they are in a position to 

need to label a vehicle before the annual guidance has been issued. The agencies 

recognize that revising the median baseline vehicle each year may lead to some consumer 

confusion, but this dilemma is no different than what consumers currently encounter 

when they view identical vehicles from different model years and their associated annual 

fuel cost or the comparative fuel economy slider bar for each vehicle displayed on 

today’s label. The agencies continue to believe that the underlying assumptions need to 

be up-to-date to be most useful to consumers. Nevertheless, the agencies request 

comment on what the agencies might do to avoid potential confusion. 

The following example is based on model year 2010 data and assumes that one or 

more vehicles that emit zero CO2 tailpipe emissions (i.e., electric or fuel cell vehicles) 

have entered the market. Gasoline-equivalent MPG values are provided in the table for 

clarity. However, the agencies propose that the CO2 values be controlling for purposes of 

assigning the rating.

Table II.A.4-1 

Example Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating System 

CO2 Range (grams 

per mile) 

Rating Combined gasoline MPG 

or MPGe 

0-76 A+ 117 and higher 

77-152 A 59-116 

153-229 A- 40-58 

230-305 B+ 30-39 

306-382 B 24-29 

383-458 B- 20-23 

459-535 C+ 18-19 

536-611 C 16-17 

612-688 C- 14-15 

689-764 D+ 13 

765-842 

and higher 

D 12 and lower 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 39 of 339 

This example would result in the following distributions of ratings, based on 2010 vehicle 

model types, plus several additional vehicles indicated as “Electric Vehicle” and “Plug-in 

Hybrid Electric Vehicle.”73

Applying this rating system to model year 2010 data would assign the ratings as follows 

for the sample vehicles listed. Of course, future model year vehicles could receive 

different ratings from those shown in this example. 

CO2

g/mi

MPGe Sample Vehicles

A+ 0-76 117 

and up 

Electric Vehicle 

 

73 The additional vehicles are examples of types expected to enter the commercial market. The CO2 and 

MPGe values shown are examples only and are not based on any formal testing or certification data. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 40 of 339 

A 77-152 59-116 Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle 

A- 153-

229 

40-58 Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid, Toyota Prius 

B+ 230-

305 

30-39 Chevrolet Cobalt (Manual), Ford Escape Hybrid (2WD), Honda 

Fit, Nissan Altima Hybrid, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Toyota 

Corolla (1.8L Manual), Toyota Yaris, Volkswagen Golf 

B 306-

382 

24-29 Chevrolet Cobalt (Automatic), Chevrolet Malibu (2.4L), Ford 

Escape (2.5L Manual), Ford Escape Hybrid (4WD), Ford Focus, 

Ford Fusion (2.5L), Ford Ranger (2.3L Manual), Honda Accord 

(2.4L), Honda Civic, Honda CR-V (2WD), Hyundai Elantra, 

Hyundai Sonata (2.4L), Jeep Patriot (2.0L, 2.4L Manual), Mazda 

3, Nissan Altima (2.5L), Nissan Sentra, Porsche Boxster 

(Automatic), Toyota Camry (2.5L), Toyota Corolla (1.8L 

Automatic, 2.4L), Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Toyota Matrix, 

Toyota RAV4 (2.5L) 

B- 383-

458 

20-23 Cadillac CTS (3.0/3.6L, Automatic), Chevrolet Impala, 

Chevrolet Malibu (3.5L and 3.6L), Chevrolet Silverado 15 

Hybrid, Chevrolet Tahoe 1500 Hybrid, Dodge Charger (2.7/3.5L 

with 4-speed Automatic), Dodge Grand Caravan (4.0L), Ford 

Escape (2.5L Automatic), Ford Fusion (3.5L), Ford Mustang 

(4.0L Manual), Ford Ranger (2.3L Automatic), GMC Canyon 

(2.9L), GMC Sierra 15 Hybrid, Honda Accord (3.5L), Honda 

CR-V (4WD), Hyundai Sonata (3.3L), Hyundai Santa Fe, Jeep 

Patriot (2.4L CVT), Nissan Altima (3.5L), Porsche Boxster 

(Manual), Subaru Forester, Toyota 4Runner (2.7L), Toyota 

Camry (3.5L), Toyota Highlander (2WD), Toyota RAV4 (3.5L), 

Toyota Tacoma (2.7L 2WD) 

C+ 459-

535 

18-19 BMW 750Li (4.4L 2WD), Cadillac CTS (3.0/3.6L, Manual), 

Chevrolet Corvette (6.2L Automatic, 7.0L), Chevrolet Express 

1500 (4.3L), Chevrolet Silverado 15 (4.3L 2WD, 5.3L), 

Chevrolet Tahoe 1500, Dodge Charger (3.5/5.7L with 5-speed 

Automatic), Dodge Grand Caravan (3.3L, 3.8L), Ford Explorer 

(4.6L 2WD), Ford F150 (2WD 6-speed Automatic), Ford 

Mustang(4.0L Automatic, 4.6L, 5.4L), Ford Ranger (4.0L 

Automatic), GMC Canyon (3.7L, 5.3L 2WD), GMC Sierra 15 

(4.3L 2WD, 5.3L), Honda Pilot, Jaguar XJ, Jeep Grand Cherokee 

(3.7L), Kia Sedona, Toyota 4Runner (4.0L), Toyota Highlander 

(4WD), Toyota Sienna, Toyota Tacoma (2.7L 4WD, 4.0L 

Automatic), Toyota Tundra (4.6L 2WD) 

C 536-

611 

16-17 BMW 750Li (4.4L 4WD, 6.0L 2WD), Cadillac CTS (6.2L, 

Manual), Chevrolet Corvette (6.2L Manual), Chevrolet Express 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 41 of 339 

1500 (5.3L), Chevrolet Silverado 15 (4.3L 4WD, 4.8L, 6.3L 

2WD), Dodge Charger (6.1L), Ford Explorer (4.0L and 4.6L 

4WD), Ford F150 (4-speed Automatic, 4WD 6-speed automatic), 

GMC Canyon (5.3L 4WD), GMC Sierra 15 (4.3L 4WD, 4.8L, 

6.2L), Jeep Grand Cherokee (5.7L), Nissan Titan (2WD), Toyota 

Tacoma (4.0L Manual), Toyota Tundra (4.0L, 4.6L 4WD, 5.7L 

2WD) 

C- 612-

688 

14-15 Aston Martin DBS, BMW M5, Cadillac CTS (6.2L, Automatic), 

Chevrolet Silverado 15 (6.3L 4WD), GMC Sierra 15 (6.2L 

4WD), Land Rover Range Rover, Lexus LX 570, Maserati 

Quattroporte, Nissan Titan (4WD), Toyota Tundra (5.7L 4WD) 

D+ 689-

764 

13 Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, Mercedes-Benz Maybach 57 

D 765 

and up 

12 and 

down Ferrari 612 Scaglietti 

 One potential issue with this approach is that a rating system based on CO2

emissions may not be an adequate proxy for a fuel economy rating system if the agencies 

decide in the final rule to allow manufacturers to use A/C credits in determining their 

CO2 emissions values. Since fuel economy by definition does not account for HFC 

leakage, a CO2 rating boosted by A/C leakage credits would not accurately represent the 

vehicle’s fuel economy rating. EISA requires that labels include a rating system that 

allows consumers to compare fuel economy across vehicles, so a fuel economy rating 

system that includes HFC leakage arguably would not meet these requirements. The 

proposed Label 1 would address this issue, whether A/C were included in the letter-grade 

rating or not, by virtue of also having the absolute rating scale for fuel economy at the 

bottom of the label. Still, the agencies seek comment on whether a rating system that 

combined fuel economy and CO2 emissions could accurately describe both if A/C credits 

were permitted to be included in the rating system for CO2. 

Another issue with using a CO2-based method is the fact that some diesel vehicles 

would see their rating reduced by 1⁄2 letter grade – i.e., diesel vehicles would appear 

“worse” to the consumer in the rating system – relative to an approach that relied on 

MPG or fuel consumption, given the higher carbon content of a gallon of diesel fuel 

compared to a gallon of gasoline. This could potentially discourage some sales of diesel 

vehicles if consumers are influenced by the rating system, which the agencies may not 

necessarily want to accomplish. However, because a consistent basis is needed across all 

fuels, MPGe would need to be used rather than MPG: this would provide equivalency on 

an energy basis rather than a volume basis, and would allow the use of an MPG-type 

metric across fuels that are not dispensed by the gallon, such as CNG and electricity. 

Since gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol have nearly equivalent ratios of energy to 

carbon, the choice of MPGe versus CO2/mile has minimal impact on the rating system 

results, particularly for liquid fuels. The agencies nevertheless seek comment on how 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 42 of 339 

significantly a CO2-based rating system might impact diesel sales, and whether an 

MPGe-based rating system might ameliorate any such impact, and if so, how that rating 

system would need to be structured for technology neutrality. 

In practical terms, this means that the rating system would include all vehicles for 

which fuel economy information and labeling is required, which currently includes all 

passenger automobiles and light trucks as defined by NHTSA at 49 CFR Part 523. More 

specifically, the rating system would span all automobiles up to 8,500 pounds gross 

vehicle weight, plus some vehicles (large SUVs and some passenger vans) between 8,500 

and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. We believe that this is consistent with the intent 

of Congress, based on the text of EISA which refers clearly to labels for “automobiles” 

rather than “passenger” or “non-passenger automobiles,” and which states that the rating 

system must include a designation of the vehicle with the highest fuel economy and 

lowest GHG emissions.74 The approach of including all vehicles in a single rating 

system is supported by the market research and literature reviews done for this proposal, 

which show that, while prospective vehicle purchasers narrow their choices by vehicle 

type early in the buying decision, they do not focus narrowly on a single class, at least as 

defined by EPA. Focus group participants indicated that they shopped, on average, across 

two to three vehicle classes.75 For these consumers, a single rating system will enable 

them to make accurate vehicle comparisons across whichever vehicles they choose to 

shop. Market research also indicates that consumers have varying definitions of what 

constitutes a specific vehicle class, thus making it challenging to categorize vehicles in a 

way that is useful for all consumers. 

Nevertheless, EPA is seeking comment on rating passenger cars separately from 

light duty trucks under its authority to require other information related to fuel economy 

as authorized by the Administrator at 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F).76 In this case, EPA 

would propose to use the same definitions for cars and trucks used for light-duty fuel 

economy and GHG standards, which are NHTSA’s definitions provided in 49 CFR Part 

523. Doing so would be consistent with automaker obligations under those requirements, 

in which cars and trucks have separate sets of standards. Additionally, market research 

shows that, while many people shop across several narrowly-defined classes, about twothirds shop exclusively among either trucks or cars. These consumers might find it useful 

to compare among only those vehicles of interest. If a commenter believes that separate 

rating systems for cars and trucks would be preferable, EPA especially seeks comment on 

whether those consumers that shop among both cars and trucks could adequately compare 

across their vehicles of interest if ratings systems were separated, and whether or not the 

 

74 49 U.S.C. 32908 (g)(1)(A)(ii). 

75 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report, 

EPA420-R-10-907, August 2010, p. 18. 

76 NHTSA does not interpret 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) as permitting rating systems based on less than 

the entire fleet, so a rating system for fuel economy and/or GHG emissions based on only the car or truck 

fleet would not be sufficient to satisfy EISA’s requirement, although EPA could require such a rating 

system under its authority. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 43 of 339 

emerging “crossover” market will make this “car/truck” distinction increasingly less 

relevant and potentially confusing to the public.77 

5. Other Emissions Performance and Rating System

In addition to fuel economy and greenhouse gas information and ratings, EISA 

requires new vehicles to also be labeled with information reflecting a vehicle’s 

performance in terms of “other emissions,” and a rating system that would make it easy 

for consumers to compare the other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase.78 

Unlike fuel economy and GHG emissions, EISA does not expressly require the 

designation of the “best” vehicle in terms of other emissions. This section lays out the 

criteria that EPA proposes NHTSA use to form the basis for other emissions performance 

and ratings. Concurrently, NHTSA proposes that these criteria be used as the foundation 

for information that is provided on the label. 

 

Congress did not precisely define in EISA which of the pollutants in the universe 

of possible candidates for “other emissions” should be included for labeling purposes. 

The agencies assume that Congress did not intend to create any new substantive 

requirements as part of this labeling provision for pollutants that are not currently 

regulated and, thus, propose that “other emissions” include those tailpipe emissions, other 

than CO2, for which vehicles are required to meet current emission standards. These air 

pollutants comprise both criteria emissions regulated under EPA's National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and air toxics, and include: 

• NMOG—non-methane organic gases; 

• NOx—oxides of nitrogen; 

• PM—particulate matter; 

• CO—carbon monoxide; and 

• HCHO—formaldehyde. 

Auto manufacturers must provide the agency with emission rates of these 

pollutants for all new light duty vehicles each model year under EPA’s Tier 2 light duty 

vehicle emissions standards requirements, 79 or the parallel requirements for those 

vehicles certified instead to the California emissions standards.80 Emission standards for 

these pollutants are aggregated into bins; each bin contains emissions limits on a gram 

per mile basis for each of the aforementioned pollutants for the useful life of the vehicle, 

as shown in Table II.A.5-1. To be eligible for sale in the United States, each vehicle 

 

77 For example, under NHTSA’s and EPA’s definitions, the same version of a crossover could potentially 

be a “car” if it were two wheel drive and a “truck” if it were four wheel drive. A consumer looking at the 

labels of these two vehicles side by side might find it challenging to understand why their ratings were 

different. 

78 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A). 

79 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. 

80 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), Clean Air Act Section 209, gives California special authority to enact stricter air 

pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government’s, as long as under certain requirements 

are met. 42 U.S.C. 7507, Clean Air Act Section 177, allows states, under certain conditions, to adopt 

California’s vehicle emission standards. See 40 CFR 86.1844-01. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 44 of 339 

model and configuration must be certified to a specific bin, meaning that the automaker is 

confirming that the vehicle is designed not to exceed the specified emission rates for any 

of the pollutants over the useful life of the vehicles. Automakers must submit data to 

EPA that demonstrates compliance with these levels, with a requirement that their fleet 

achieve a sales-weighted NOx average equivalent to the Bin 5 standard or cleaner 

annually. California and states that have adopted California emissions standards in lieu 

of the federal standards have similar sets of emissions standards, known as the Low 

Emitting Vehicle II (LEV II) standards.81 

Table II.A.5-1 

US EPA Light Duty Tier 2 Emission Standards 

Emission Limits at Full Useful Life (120,000 miles) for Model 

Year 2004 and Later Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks, 

and Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles 

NOx 

(g/mi) 

NMOG 

(g/mi) 

CO 

(g/mi) 

PM 

(g/mi) 

HCHO 

(g/mi) 

Bin 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Bin 2 0.02 0.01 2.1 0.01 0.004 

Bin 3 0.03 0.055 2.1 0.01 0.011 

Bin 4 0.04 0.07 2.1 0.01 0.011 

Bin 5 0.07 0.09 4.2 0.01 0.018 

Bin 6 0.1 0.09 4.2 0.01 0.018 

Bin 7 0.15 0.09 4.2 0.02 0.018 

Bin 8 0.2 0.125 4.2 0.02 0.018 

The agencies considered whether to provide specific information and ratings for 

each of these individual pollutants listed above. EPA Tier 2 emission regulations do 

require manufacturers to submit specific information regarding the performance of each 

vehicle for each of these pollutants, but the agencies believe that attempting to require all 

of it to be represented on the fuel economy label, along with rating systems for each, 

would be unduly burdensome and not reasonable given space constraints and the need to 

present all the other information required by EPCA and EISA. 

In addition, in the focus groups conducted for this proposal, consumers’ interest in 

actual emissions levels across multiple pollutants was minimal, and this level of detail is 

likely to be well beyond that which most members of the public would seek or find 

useful.82 Repeatedly, focus group participants reflected that it was the job of the 

government to determine the relative importance of the pollutants, and that the label 

should not leave this determination up to the individual. Given that EISA did not specify 

exactly which pollutants would make up “other emissions” and given focus group 

 

81 The California Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and MediumDuty Vehicles, Title 13, California Code of Regulations (last amended March 29, 2010). 82 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010, p. 29. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 45 of 339 

feedback that differentiation between other emissions did not add value for many 

participants, the agencies are not proposing to provide pollutant-specific information on 

the label for “other emissions. Nevertheless, the agencies seek comment on whether 

pollutant-specific information and ratings might have value to consumers beyond what 

the agencies have seen in their focus group research, and if so, how the agencies might 

design a label to require pollutant-specific information and ratings that would make it 

easy for consumers to compare other pollutant emissions across vehicles at the point of 

purchase. 

Instead, the agencies believe that a rating based on the groups of emissions 

standards--either the Federal Tier 2 bin system or the California LEV II system, as 

appropriate—can and should be used to meet this requirement. This approach mirrors the 

current Air Pollution Score on EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide (www.epa.gov/greenvehicle). 

Vehicle certification under either the Federal Tier 2 bin system or the California LEV II 

system allows auto manufacturers to certify that their vehicles will fall into an emissions 

range across each of the regulated pollutants. In effect, the Federal and California 

systems rate vehicles according to their air pollution emissions by compiling the 

requirements across multiple pollutants into one category (a Tier 2 bin or a LEV II 

standard). Though these systems are useful for regulatory compliance, they have limited 

recognition among consumers. However, relative rating systems are well-recognized by 

the public, and the Federal emissions bins and California standards categories are wellsuited to conversion to a relative rating system that would be readily understandable. 

EPA and NHTSA therefore propose to establish a rating system for “other 

emissions” in which each rating is associated with a bin from the Federal Tier 2 

emissions standards (or comparable California emissions standard). Table II.A.5-2 

provides an example of how such a system would work for a ten-point rating scale.83 

Various graphical representations of this rating are being contemplated, as discussed in 

Section III. 

 

83 Under EPA regulations, Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) are allowed to import a limited 

number of older vehicles that can be certified to the emission standards which were in effect at the time the 

vehicle was produced. In some cases, these standards may be pre-Tier 2 standards. Because the rating 

system being proposed for other pollutants on the FE label is based on the Tier 2 bin structure, we are 

proposing that vehicles imported by ICIs that are not subject to the Tier 2 standards will automatically be 

rated as a "1" (i.e., the rating assigned to vehicles with the worst emissions under the Tier 2 bin structure).
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 46 of 339 

Table II.A.5-2 

Proposed Rating System for Other Emissions 

Rating 

EPA Tier 2 

Emissions 

Standard 

California Air 

Resources Board LEV II 

Emissions Standard 

10 Bin 1 ZEV 

9 N/A PZEV 

8 Bin 2 SULEV II 

7 Bin 3 N/A 

6 Bin 4 ULEV II 

5 Bin 5 LEV II 

4 Bin 6 LEV II opt 1 

3 Bin 7 N/A 

2 Bin 8 SULEV II large trucks 

1 N/A 

ULEV & LEV II large 

trucks 

Because such a rating would be directly reflective of the emissions standards 

requirements for air pollutants to which the vehicle is certified, the agencies believe that 

it could serve the dual purposes of performance information and ratings for “other 

emissions” as required by 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i) and (A)(ii). Such an approach 

would have the advantage of avoiding requiring detailed information on the label that 

would detract from the key elements and could be of minimal use to the majority of the 

public. NHTSA and EPA seek comment on whether also utilizing the rating system to 

meet the requirement for performance information on other emissions would be 

permissible under EISA. 

6. Overall Energy and Environmental Rating

One of the issues that came up frequently in the focus groups conducted for this 

proposal was how to design a label that balanced the competing interests of completeness 

and simplicity. It became clear that different consumers wanted different amounts of 

information and levels of detail about fuel economy, GHG emissions, and other 

emissions, and how vehicles compare to one another. Many focus group participants 

expressed an interest in most or all of the information that might be offered, until they 

saw that the label they had “designed” would be cluttered and difficult to read; at this 

point, many culled their desired information down to a few key elements. Other 

participants simply were not interested in much detail. Yet other participants insisted that 

they wanted more detail anyway and would not find labels with more information 

distracting or confusing.84 

 

84 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010, p. 29. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 47 of 339 

One approach that emerged to condense the level of detail was to combine rating 

systems: for example, a rating system that combined fuel economy and CO2 emissions, 

or that combined CO2 and other pollutant emissions, or that combined all three. Because 

they have different sets of units and different scales, rating systems that combine different 

data elements must employ relative or unit-free scales, such as the letter grade system, 

rather than absolute approaches like the separate rating scales discussed above. Using the 

bar as an example, if CO2 and other pollutants were combined into a single bar, a vehicle 

that falls at one point between the absolute end points for CO2 emissions may not fall at 

the same point between the (different) end points for other emissions, which would make 

combining the ratings challenging at best, and unhelpful at worst. Similarly, while a 

vehicle may fall at roughly the same point between “best” and “worst” absolute values 

for both fuel economy and CO2 emissions, differences in scale make presenting that 

visually difficult and possibly factually incorrect. 

Thus, if the agencies wanted to try to combine rating systems for visual simplicity 

and to appeal to consumers who want labels with less information, a relative scale – 1 to 

10, 1 to 5, A+ to D – is needed. The agencies tested combined relative scales for GHG 

and other pollutant emissions fairly extensively in the focus groups, with mixed results. 

When environmental ratings were shown in the context of the label, the preference was 

for a consolidated environmental rating, with participants expressing minimal interest in 

having separate information on greenhouse gases and other air pollutant emissions; these 

participants often stated that the EPA was in a better position to assess the relative 

concerns regarding the various environmental factors than were the participants 

themselves.85 In contrast, however, when the environmental rating approaches were 

shown in isolation, apart from the context of the entire label, many participants indicated 

a preference for two separate ratings, arguing that more complete information holds more 

value.86 

Congress required in EISA that each new vehicle must be labeled with a “rating 

system that would make it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and 

greenhouse gases and other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including a 

designation of automobiles with the lowest GHG emissions over the useful life of the 

vehicles; and the highest fuel economy . . . .” Thus, for purposes of meeting the statute, 

the question is whether a rating that combined two or all three elements could accurately 

reflect which vehicle achieves the lowest GHG and the highest fuel economy. For 

purposes of meeting consumers’ needs in a label, the question is how to design a label 

that is helpful both to the people who want more information and detail and to the people 

who want less information and detail. Given the EPCA requirements for fuel economy 

and annual cost information, and the EISA requirements for performance information on 

fuel economy, greenhouse gases, and other emissions, the agencies believe that the needs 

for more detail-oriented consumers will likely be adequately met. 

 

85 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010, p. 25. 

86 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010, p. 39. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 48 of 339 

In the previous section we discussed an approach to combining fuel economy and 

CO2 into one overall rating; in this section the agencies discuss the additional option of 

also combining “other emissions” with either CO2 or with a combined fuel economy/CO2

rating. EPA and NHTSA recognize that there is not a strong correlation between CO2 and 

other emissions, due to sophisticated emission control systems, such as catalytic 

converters and exhaust gas recirculation, which target reductions of specific pollutants 

but do not also reduce CO2 emissions. In addition, the agencies are cognizant of the very 

real challenges automakers must overcome to achieve the required emissions levels and 

do not wish to deprive them of public recognition of advancements in reducing air 

pollutants that could come with a separate rating system for pollutants. Moreover, a 

separate rating would provide information for purchasers who value low emission levels 

and an opportunity to raise awareness among other consumers of which vehicles produce 

lower emissions. And finally, as discussed above, the agencies have determined that a 

rating for “other emissions” also meets the EISA requirement of providing vehicle 

performance information for those emissions. Combining this rating for “other 

emissions” with ratings for fuel economy and greenhouse gases would potentially be at 

odds with this requirement. For these reasons, the agencies propose that the rating for 

“other emissions” be separate from the rating(s) for fuel economy and greenhouse gases. 

Nevertheless, while some focus group participants wanted more information, 

most clearly wanted less and suggested that they would glean little additional value from 

a label with separate ratings. The agencies seek comment on whether it would be more 

useful to provide a single rating that captures all three elements: fuel economy, 

greenhouse gases, and other emissions. As a matter of technical appropriateness, 

although there is not a strong correlation between emissions of CO2 and emission of other 

pollutants, there is some correlation. The vehicles with the lowest fuel economy levels 

and highest CO2 emissions do not typically meet the cleaner emission bins; conversely, 

those with high fuel economy and low CO2 emissions are rarely, if ever, certified to the 

higher emission bins. 

Including other emissions in the rating system to form one rating would simplify 

for the consumer the overall energy and environmental impact of using the vehicle, thus 

reducing their need to weigh the relative importance of the various elements. It also 

allows the label to be less cluttered and more streamlined. 

Therefore, it is possible and perhaps reasonable to combine “other emissions” 

with the fuel economy/CO2 letter grade approach. Under this approach, the rating for 

fuel economy and greenhouse gases applicable to a vehicle would be adjusted upward or 

downward, based on the Federal emissions bin (or California standard) to which the 

vehicle is certified. That is, vehicles that are certified to the cleanest bins would have 

their rating increased—for example, under a letter grade system, a Bin 2 vehicle 

otherwise eligible for a B+ would have their rating increased to an A-. Table II.A.6-1 

illustrates how such a system could work. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 49 of 339 

Table II.A.6-1 

Potential Comprehensive Rating 

Fuel Economy/ 

Greenhouse Gas 

Rating 

Overall Energy and Environment 

Rating 

Bin 1, 2, 3 Bin 4, 5 Bin 6, 7, 8 

A+ A+ A+ A 

A A+ A AA- A A- B+ 

B+ A- B+ B 

B B+ B BB- B B- C+ 

C+ B- C+ C 

C C+ C CC- C C- D+ 

D+ C- D+ D 

D D+ D D- 

 

7. Indicating Highest Fuel Economy/Lowest Greenhouse Vehicles

 In addition to ratings indicating relative emissions performance, EISA also 

requires the rating system to include “a designation of automobiles with the lowest 

greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles; and the highest fuel 

economy.” 

 Depending on the rating system(s) selected, differing approaches may be needed 

to achieve this requirement. For example, if the fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

ratings are provided separately, such as with the absolute bars shown on labels 1 and 2, 

consumers would be able to easily identify the highest fuel economy and lowest 

greenhouse gas emitting vehicles by looking for those that have the highest absolute 

values. If fuel economy and greenhouse gases are combined into one rating, such as 

with the letter grade system, but are provided separately from other emissions, again 

consumers should be able to easily identify the highest fuel economy/lowest GHG 

vehicles by looking for those that achieve the best rating category. However, this will 

likely encompass more models than would be designated “best” under an absolute rating 

system, which may or may not have been the intent of EISA. In that instance, the rating 

system itself meets the requirement for designation of lowest GHG automobiles, defined 

in that case as the group of vehicles that achieve the best rating category. 

If, on the other hand, fuel economy and greenhouse gases are combined 

with other emissions into a comprehensive rating, and no other information on the label 

indicates the highest fuel economy/lowest GHG vehicles, then the rating system would 

need to be adjusted in order to ensure that EISA requirements were met. The agencies 

seek comment on whether separate ratings should be provided for other emissions or 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 50 of 339 

whether a single combined rating for fuel economy, GHG and other emissions should be 

provided. 

8. SmartWay Logo 

EPA and NHTSA additionally seek comment on utilizing the SmartWay logo as 

an indicator of a high level of overall environmental performance. The SmartWay Logo 

appears as follows: 

The SmartWay logo could be added to the label as a way of highlighting the top 

environmental performers each model year. This approach is contemplated for labels 2 

and 3. 

The trademarked SmartWay designation was launched in 2005 on the EPA’s 

Green Vehicle Guide website (www.epa.gov/greenvehicle) to provide consumers with a 

quick and easy way to determine which vehicles were the cleanest and most fuel efficient 

for each model year. It has been awarded to those vehicle models that achieve certain 

thresholds on the Greenhouse Gas score (which is tied to the vehicle’s fuel economy and 

fuel type) and the Air Pollution score (which is tied to the Tier 2 bins or California 

standards, as applicable). Historically, the SmartWay thresholds determined by EPA 

have been targeted to approximately the top 20% of vehicle models each model year, and 

have been tightened over time as the fleet has become cleaner and more fuel efficient. 

The SmartWay logo for light duty vehicles is currently being used on a voluntary 

basis by auto manufacturers, vehicle-search web sites, rental car companies, banks/credits 

unions (green vehicle loan programs), and private companies (light duty commercial 

fleets and employee incentive programs). The SmartWay logo was included on labels 

shown to focus group participants for this rulemaking. Although participants did not 

recognize the logo, most readily understood that they could use it when shopping for 

vehicles to quickly identify those that were environmentally friendly, without having to 

review the rest of the environmental information on the label.87

Because focus groups have indicated that some consumers prefer more detailed 

information while others prefer a simpler presentation, the agencies are seeking comment 

on whether to require or optionally allow the SmartWay logo on the label for applicable 

vehicles. This logo would indicate in a binary fashion, similar to other eco-labels, 

whether \ a vehicle meets certain environmental and energy use thresholds. Specifically, 

the agencies seek comment on whether including the SmartWay logo would be helpful to 

consumers on a label that already addresses fuel economy, GHGs, and other emissions in 

other formats. 

 

87 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010, p. 41. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 51 of 339 

9. Annual Fuel Cost 

EPCA requires the estimated annual fuel cost be displayed on the fuel economy 

label.88 Prior to 2008, the label simply displayed the estimated annual cost with no 

explanatory information. EPA’s consumer research in 2006 found that consumers paid 

little attention to this metric, and the reason most frequently stated was that the 

assumptions behind the estimate (annual miles and fuel price) were unknown to them.89 

As a result, the 2008 label modifications included a requirement that these assumptions 

be placed on the label.90 EPA publishes annual guidance directing manufacturers what 

fuel price to use for determining annual cost—based on projections made by the 

Department of Energy91--so that all vehicles in a given model year use the same 

assumptions. The estimated annual fuel cost can therefore be used to compare across 

vehicles of the same model year. As an example, the estimated annual fuel cost to be 

used for labels on model year 2008 gasoline-fueled vehicles is $2.80. 

 

Despite the addition to the label of the assumptions behind the annual fuel cost 

starting in 2008, the early focus groups conducted in 2010 showed that many participants 

still did not pay much attention to the estimated annual fuel cost metric. Participants 

often stated that this was because fuel prices fluctuate and, therefore, they did not think 

that the fuel price assumption stated on the label reflected what they were actually 

paying. Less frequently, participants additionally said that the fact that they did not drive 

15,000 miles a year made the estimated annual cost not meaningful to them. Participants 

remained skeptical of the use of estimated annual fuel cost even when asked to consider 

whether it could be a useful comparative metric across other vehicles of the same model 

year. In retrospect, it is possible that providing this information on the label about the 

assumptions behind the annual fuel cost number resolved one issue and caused others, in 

that now there are two more numbers for the consumer to process and question. There is 

also the possibility that consumers are not aware that the two assumptions are used 

universally across all vehicles, which would call into question the usefulness of the 

metric as a comparative tool at the point of purchase (for example, if they believe that the 

manufacturers individually determine the inputs to the estimated annual fuel cost). 

However, participants in the Phase 3 focus groups leading up to this NPRM consistently 

employed the annual fuel cost information (along with MPG) when asked to compare the 

fuel efficiency of advanced technology vehicles like PHEVs and EVs with conventional 

vehicles, with their more complicated set of energy metrics.92 

Recognizing the EPCA statutory requirement to continue to display the estimated 

annual fuel cost, EPA requests comment on how to improve consumers’ understanding of 

 

88 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(B). 

89 PRR, Inc., EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups: Report of Findings, prepared for U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, March 2005. 

90 40 CFR 600.307-08. 

91 The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration publishes gasoline and diesel fuel price 

forecasts at least annually in its Annual Energy Outlook , available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 92 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010, p.37. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 52 of 339 

the estimated annual fuel cost, whether it is a useful comparative tool across 

technologies, and if so, how to best communicate on the label that it is a valid 

comparative tool. EPA also requests comment on whether there might be an additional 

way to display fuel cost information – or a better way of displaying the required 

information – that might be more useful or might have a greater impact on consumers. In 

the 2010 focus groups, some groups were presented with a number of different ways of 

displaying fuel costs on the label, ranging in magnitude from dollars per mile to dollars 

per five years.93 A fairly clear preference emerged for dollars per year, with dollars per 

month a frequent second choice.94 EPA is thus proposing labels that continue to 

prominently display the estimated annual fuel cost and the associated assumptions. EPA 

is requesting comment on whether the label should include the estimated monthly fuel 

cost, or other alternative cost information. Commenters should bear in mind the statutory 

requirement that estimated annual fuel cost be on the label; thus any other cost would 

have to be an additional piece of information. 

10. Relative Fuel Savings or Cost

The expert panel recommended another approach to presenting fuel cost 

information—to focus on the savings attainable by purchasing a more fuel efficient 

vehicle. These panelists felt strongly that savings is a much more powerful message than 

cost, which tends to be discounted, as just discussed. Although savings calculations 

would necessarily also rely on assumptions, they suggested that the value of savings to 

the consumer is significant enough to overcome these drawbacks, at least for a substantial 

portion of the population. NHTSA and EPA therefore propose including a five-year 

savings value on Label 1. No such value is proposed for Labels 2 or 3, although the 

agencies could also require savings information on these labels, if one of them were 

finalized. 

The agencies explored a number of methods for calculating savings. The most 

promising approach seems to be savings compared to the projected median vehicle for 

that model year, and the agencies propose this method. Thus, some vehicles would show 

a savings, while others would show consumers paying more for fuel over five years 

compared to a reference vehicle; these values would increase in magnitude the further the 

vehicle is in terms of fuel consumption from the reference value. This approach 

appropriately reflects that fuel cost savings become larger the more a vehicle improves 

their fuel economy, and conversely that vehicles cost more to fuel when fuel efficiency is 

decreased when compared to the reference, median, vehicle. 

As with the fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating system and comparable class 

information, the EPA would provide annual guidance indicating the value to be used as 

the reference against which the fuel cost savings would be measured. The reference fiveyear fuel cost would be calculated by applying the gasoline fuel price to the average 

 

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010, p. 19. 

94 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010, p. 19. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 53 of 339 

miles driven over the first five years of the reference vehicle’s life, assuming a particular 

fuel economy for the reference vehicle; these values would be provided in the annual 

guidance. We propose that the fuel economy value for the reference vehicle be based on 

the projected fuel economy value of the median vehicle model type for sale the previous 

model year, not sales-weighted, and adjusted based on projections regarding the 

upcoming model year. This value is expected to change slightly from one year to the 

next as the fleet becomes more fuel efficient in response to regulations and market forces. 

The guidance would also include the fuel prices to be used to calculate fuel cost savings 

for the particular vehicle, based on its applicable fuel type. Finally, we propose to round 

the fuel cost savings values used on the label to the nearest one hundred dollars to avoid 

implying more precision than is warranted, as well as for ease of recall. 

As previously stated, vehicles with a higher fuel economy than the median vehicle 

would be designated as saving the consumer a certain number of dollars over a five year 

period. For those vehicles with fuel economy lower than the median vehicle, the label 

would state that the consumer would spend a certain number of dollars more over a five 

year period. Vehicles that are within fifty dollars of the reference vehicle fuel cost could 

be designated as saving zero dollars. Alternatively, text could indicate that this vehicle is 

comparable to the average vehicle. Although the agencies recognize that “median” is a 

more accurate term than “average,” we propose the use of the term ‘average” as being 

more readily understandable. 

Other methods considered include savings compared to the average vehicle one 

grade lower, and fuel cost savings compared to vehicles 10 MPG lower. These 

approaches had certain positive aspects, particularly in that they demonstrated the value 

of incremental improvements in vehicle choice. In the main, however, they provided 

values that seemed to be difficult to interpret and could perhaps cause perverse effects. 

For example, a vehicle at the high end of their grade or rating would have a higher 

savings value than a vehicle at the low end of their grade or rating. This might be 

valuable for those who are considering vehicles within the same grade. However, for 

those shoppers who glanced at the number quickly, they might erroneously conclude that, 

for instance, a vehicle at the low end of the B- grade would save less on fuel costs than a 

vehicle at the high end of the D+ grade. The agencies seek comment on this and 

alternative approaches, as opposed to the proposed approach of displaying a vehicle’s 

fuel cost savings relative to the median vehicle in the fleet. The agencies are also seeking 

comment on whether there is a potential for consumer confusion caused by two different 

cost values displayed on Label 1 with regard to the estimated annual fuel cost of 

operating the vehicle and the 5 year fuel cost savings number compared to the average 

vehicle. We are interested in receiving comments on how consumers may perceive these 

values as interacting with each other and we intend to explore this issue further prior to 

finalizing this proposal, including exploring research conducted in executive branch 

agencies. 

11. Range of Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 54 of 339 

EPCA requires that the label contain “the range of fuel economy of comparable 

automobiles of all manufacturers,” a requirement that the label addressed somewhat 

awkwardly for many years.95 As a result of EPA’s 2006 labeling rule, the labels now use 

a graphical element to show the performance of the labeled vehicle relative to the best 

and worst within that vehicle class.96 In the 2010 focus groups, it became clear that this 

information, though more prominently displayed on today’s fuel economy label than in 

previous iterations of the label, continued to be under-utilized by consumers as a tool to 

assist them in making vehicle purchase decisions. 

EPA is now proposing two possible ways of meeting this statutory requirement. 

Given the likelihood of more information on the label, a graphic as used on the current 

label that repeats the combined fuel economy number may overly complicate the new 

label. Thus one option being proposed is simply a text statement that would read 

“Combined fuel economy for [insert vehicle class] ranges from XX to XX.” This 

approach is used on Labels 1 and 3. The other option EPA is proposing is essentially an 

updated version of the current graphical representation, which combines the fuel 

economy rating across all vehicles with the within-class information into one graphical 

element, as shown in Section III as part of Label 2. 

The agencies believe that one of these approaches could be used to satisfy the 

statutory requirements in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C) (“the range of fuel economy of 

comparable automobiles”). As an alternative, EPA seeks comment on whether the 

requirement to indicate fuel economy of comparable vehicles is met by the overall fuel 

economy rating required by 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) (“a rating system that would 

make it easy to compare the fuel economy . . . of automobiles”), given that consumers 

tend to consider vehicles from several classes during their purchase process. 

12. Other Label Text

 EPA is proposing some minor changes and an addition to the text on the label not 

previously discussed, and seeks comment on each of these text changes. 

First, each of the proposed labels has information that indicates the fuel on which 

the vehicle operates. The agencies believe it will become increasingly important, as 

different technologies emerge, to display clearly the kind of vehicle a consumer is 

viewing. For duel fuel vehicles (e.g., current gasoline/ethanol vehicles), EPA is required 

by statute to identify the vehicle as a dual fuel vehicle and to identify the fuels that the 

vehicle operates on.97 In the case of current flexible-fuel vehicles, for example, this text 

would read “Dual Fuel: Gasoline-Ethanol (E85),” and for plug-in hybrid vehicles arriving 

soon on the market this text would read “Dual Fuel: Gasoline-Electricity.” In addition, 

we are proposing the use of various icons on the label to distinguish between different 

 

95 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C). 

96 40 CFR 600.307-08. A discussion of the comparable class categories and a proposed change to those 

categories can be found in section VI.B. 

97 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 55 of 339 

technologies and between different operating modes. These icons include stylized 

electric plugs, fuel pumps, and fuel dispensing nozzles. 

 Second, because of the expanded information on the label and DOT requirements 

under EISA, EPA is proposing to change the label heading from the current text (“EPA 

Fuel Economy Estimates”) to “EPA/DOT Fuel Economy & Environmental 

Comparisons.” We also propose adding the DOT logo to the label, to provide appropriate 

recognition of DOT’s role mandated by EISA. 

Third, EPA is proposing to change the Fuel Economy Guide statement found on 

the label to reflect the expanding features that comprise www.fueleconomy.gov, with the 

hope that this website will become the first Internet stop for a vehicle’s fuel economy and 

environmental information. The proposed text would read: “Visit 

www.fueleconomy.gov to calculate estimates personalized for your driving, and to 

download the Fuel economy Guide (also available at dealers).” 

EPCA requires EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare and 

distribute to dealers a fuel economy booklet, commonly known as the annual “Fuel 

Economy Guide,” containing information that is “simple and readily understandable.”98 

EPCA requires that the guide include fuel economy and estimated annual fuel costs of 

operating automobiles manufactured in each model year, as well as some additional 

information for dual fueled automobiles (such as the fuel economy and driving range on 

both fuels). Further, EPCA requires that a statement appear on the fuel economy label 

that this booklet is available from dealers.99 Starting in the 2008 model year, the 

statement on the label was broadened to include a reference to www.fueleconomy.gov as 

another source for the Fuel Economy Guide; this website is based on the EPA fuel 

economy information and jointly run by EPA and DOE. Thus the current text now reads: 

“See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or www.fueleconomy.gov.” 

Both the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy and the EPA currently maintain www.fueleconomy.gov. The site 

helps fulfill DOE and EPA’s responsibility under EPCA of 1992 to provide accurate 

MPG information to consumers. The site provides fuel economy estimates, energy and 

environmental impact ratings, fuel-saving tips, as well as a downloadable version of the 

fuel economy guide and other useful information. Since its inception in 1999 this 

website has been used by millions of consumers, and the latest data from 2008 indicates 

that more that 30 million user sessions occurred in that year. 

Because of the extensive amount of information and user features available on the 

website beyond simply providing electronic access to the Fuel Economy Guide, the 

agencies wish to direct consumers to this website when they are researching their vehicle 

purchases. For example, the website allows a user to personalize their fuel economy 

information by inputting their specific driving habits and fuel prices. This ability will be 

even more important for understanding the impacts of driving distance and battery 

 

98 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(1)(A). 

99 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(D). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 56 of 339 

charging habits on the fuel consumption of vehicles like plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, 

and EPA expects to work with DOE to develop a web-based system to allow users to 

customize the fuel economy estimates for these advanced technology vehicles. Further, 

information that some consumers may want but that is not available on the label is likely 

to be available on the website. For example, in the 2010 focus groups some participants 

expressed an interest in knowing the cost to fill the tank, or the volume of the fuel tank, 

or how many miles could be driven on a tank. The website provides all this information, 

and information such as the miles per tank can be personalized to reflect a person’s 

relative amount of city and highway driving. Finally, the website also has developed a 

version tailored to mobile devices. 

During the expert panel, EPA provided the panelists with a copy of the current 

Fuel Economy Guide. The panelists all expressed concerns that the public probably 

didn’t know it was available, didn’t access it at the dealer showrooms if they did know it 

was available, and would not respond well to it in its current format. They recommended 

a simple one-sheet “guide” that dealers would distribute in the form of a checklist, that 

would allow EPA to deliver the top ten points on fuel economy that could not (and should 

not) be included on the label. It also would ensure that even if individuals did not utilize 

the website, they would receive this information. It was also suggested that if possible, 

distribution of this document be mandatory. 

EPA requests comments on the usefulness of the Fuel Economy Guide in its 

current form and also requests comments on whether EPA and DOE should develop a 

different approach in the future to the Fuel Economy Guide -- including the idea of 

transforming the guide into a consumer friendly “checklist” guide. While EPA 

recognizes that it does not have the authority to mandate distribution of this guide by 

dealers we also request comments on how we could better encourage and work with 

dealers to more prominently display and distribute the fuel economy guide in the future. 

The expert panel also strongly recommended that the new fuel economy label 

prominently display an easy to remember URL. Panelists suggested that not only should 

such a URL be easy to remember, it should also provide a consistent platform for 

educational messages that would be highly visible for consumers and serve as a portal 

for web users to engage each other on fuel economy issues, including exchanging helpful 

tips and tools. Panelists indicated that this type of URL and message platform is of 

critical importance in today’s marketplace and that EPA should make better use of the 

label to engage the public in this manner. Finally, the panelists recommended this new 

URL not be a '.gov' website, which they suggested is generally perceived as static and 

uninviting by consumers that are increasingly reliant on highly interactive social media 

networks and tools. Label 1 series found in Section III currently displays how this URL 

concept might be incorporated in Label 1. We note that President Obama has an 

initiative on transparency and open government,100 and as part of this initiative, the 

Executive Branch has already made some significant improvements to its websites. 

 

100 See Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/ (last accessed July 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 57 of 339 

 The agencies request comment on the new URL concept displayed on Label 1, 

along with the underlying approach recommended by the expert panel: that the agencies 

create and display a prominent URL on the label that will provide both a visible 

consumer message and an easy to remember web portal or gateway to a more interactive 

consumer website. As envisioned, this website would introduce the new label approach, 

laying out what is new and unique to this label. It would explain what the agencies are 

trying to accomplish with the new design, and detail the concept of the grading system 

and underlying scoring method. It would include applications that consumers can use to 

personalize their vehicle buying decisions, based on their own driving habits and needs. 

It would also provide information that is not available on the label, such as the upstream 

emissions associated with each vehicle choice. It would also link to the detailed vehicle 

information and consumer discussion pages on fueleconomy.gov, capitalizing on the 

existing government website and further maximizing its consumer friendliness and 

usability. 

Finally, for conventional vehicles, EPA is not proposing any changes to the 

statement that currently reads “Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you 

drive and maintain your vehicle.” However, because some advanced technology vehicles 

are especially susceptible to certain conditions, such as cold weather, EPA is considering 

the addition of some specific qualifications to this statement for some vehicle 

technologies, and seeks comment on what qualifications might be most helpful. 

13. Gas Guzzler Tax Information

EPCA requires that “Gas Guzzler” tax information be included on the fuel 

economy label.101 These taxes are required under the Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. 

4064(c)(1). This part of the Internal Revenue Code contains the provisions governing the 

administration of the Gas Guzzler Tax, and specifically contains the table of applicable 

taxes and defines which vehicles are subject to the taxes. The IRS code specifies that the 

fuel economy to be used to assess the amount of tax will be the combined city and 

highway fuel economy as determined by using the procedures in place in 1975, or 

procedures that give comparable results (similar to EPCA’s requirements for determining 

CAFE for passenger automobiles). These provisions have been codified in 40 CFR 

600.513-08. This proposed rule would not impact these provisions. 

The current labeling requirements for the Gas Guzzler Tax require that an affected 

vehicle have the following statement on the label (the regulations provide different ways 

of displaying this depending on the label; for example, an alternative fuel vehicle label 

has some additional information that limits space, thus the template for labeling such a 

vehicle accounts for this). In the limited situations in which this labeling requirement 

applies, EPA expects to provide label templates including this information that are 

consistent with the label design that is ultimately selected. For example, for Label 1 

 20, 2010); see also Open Government Directive from OMB, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2010). 101 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(E). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 58 of 339 

presented in Section III, one potential option is to place the gas guzzler information in the 

position for fuel cost savings. EPA seeks comment on this approach. 

B. Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels 

1. Introduction

In the past, EPA has not devoted much effort to fuel economy label issues for 

advanced technology vehicles. There is a simple reason for this – if EPA defines a 

conventional vehicle to be that which derives all of its propulsive energy from a 

petroleum fuel (or a liquid fuel blend dominated by petroleum) stored on-board the 

vehicle, then conventional vehicles have represented well over 99% of all vehicles sold 

since the advent of fuel economy labels in the 1970s. EPA made the judgment that the 

very small number of consumers who might have considered the purchase of an electric 

or natural gas or other type of advanced technology vehicle over the last 35 years did not 

justify a major investment of government resources to address the more complex issues 

associated with advanced technology labels. Rather, EPA addressed the occasional need 

for an advanced technology vehicle label on a case-by-case basis. 

But, this situation is changing and as the market evolves, this approach is no 

longer sufficient. For the first time since labels have been in use (in fact for the first 

time since the early days of the automotive industry), it appears increasingly likely that 

the future automotive marketplace will offer a much more diverse set of technological 

choices to consumers. EPA and NHTSA believe that now is the time to begin to design 

labels that are more appropriate for advanced technology vehicles that we expect to be 

commercialized in the next few years. For purposes of this rulemaking, the agencies 

intend to focus on two advanced technologies: 

• Electric vehicles (EVs) are vehicles that are powered exclusively by batteries 

(charged with electricity from the grid) and electric motors, and which do not 

have a conventional internal combustion engine or any other powertrain. Several 

automakers sold EVs in the early and mid-1990s,102 but the only EV on the U.S. 

market today is the luxury Tesla Roadster with annual sales of a few hundred 

vehicles. The first more mainstream-priced EV offered for sale in the U.S. is the 

Nissan Leaf, for which orders are now being taken and first deliveries are 

projected for late this year in selected markets.103 In addition, Ford has 

announced plans for a model year 2012 Ford Focus EV.104

• Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) can be powered in as many as three 

different ways: 1) like an EV, exclusively by batteries and electric motors, 2) like 

 

102 Ehsani,M., Gao,Y., and Einadi, A. (2010). Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles: F 

Fundamentals, Theory, and Design. Second Edition. Pp 12-14. 

103 “Nissan’s Electric Leaf Set for Production,” Detroit News. May 26, 2010, 

http://detnews.com/article/20100526/AUTO01/5260357, (last accessed May 26, 2010). 104 Abuelsamid, Sam, “Detroit 2010: 2012 Focus Electric could be both sedan and hatch”, 

green.autoblog.com, Jan 11, 2010, available at: http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/11/detroit-2010-2012-

ford-focus-electric-could-be-both-sedan-and-h. (last accessed July 12, 2010). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 59 of 339 

a conventional hybrid vehicle, when the vehicle gets all of its propulsive energy 

from a conventional internal combustion engine/transmission (usually fueled with 

gasoline), though the battery still assists with regenerative braking and engine 

buffering, and 3) a combination of both conventional hybrid and electric 

operation. PHEVs entail a family of different engineering approaches, and will 

continue to evolve as the technology matures. One distinct type of PHEV is 

called an extended range electric vehicle (EREV). An EREV PHEV has a very 

distinct operational profile: as long as the battery is above its minimal charge 

level, the vehicle is operated exclusively on the electric powertrain, and then 

when the battery is at its minimal charge, it operates like a conventional hybrid 

getting all of its power from gasoline or other liquid fuel. In a way, an EREV 

PHEV can be considered to be a combination of an EV and a conventional hybrid, 

with an emphasis on operating like an EV as much as possible. There have been 

no commercial EREV PHEVs sold in the U.S. to date but the first commercial 

offering is likely to be the Chevrolet Volt, which is scheduled to be introduced in 

late 2010.105 A second type of PHEV is called a “blended” PHEV. As long as 

the battery is charged, it will operate on a combination of grid electricity and 

gasoline (while a blended PHEV might not have any “guaranteed” all-electric 

range, it is possible that some blended PHEV designs may have some all-electric 

range under certain driving conditions), then when the battery is at its minimal 

charge, the vehicle gets all of its propulsive energy from the gasoline fuel and 

engine (though the battery still assists with regenerative braking and engine 

buffering, as with a conventional hybrid). In this respect, a blended PHEV can be 

viewed as a combination of a “grid-enhanced” hybrid and a conventional hybrid, 

but without the emphasis on using only electricity for shorter trips as with the 

EREV PHEV. To the degree that a blended PHEV does have some practical allelectric range, the boundary between a blended PHEV and an EREV PHEV 

begins to blur. There have been no original equipment blended PHEV offerings 

in the U.S. to date, but many automakers are developing prototypes and some 

aftermarket conversions are available. The first commercial U.S. blended PHEV 

may be a Toyota Prius, likely offered as a 2012 model.106

Other advanced technology vehicles will also likely be on the market in the near 

future--for example, Honda continues to sell a dedicated compressed natural gas Civic in 

selected states and several manufacturers plan to sell fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) in the 

future.107 In any case, the issues associated with and the decisions that we make about 

 

105 “Chevy Volt’s Rollout to Include New York City,”New York Times, July 1, 2010, 

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/chevy-volts-initial-rollout-to-include-new-york-city/. (last 

accessed July 12, 2010).

106 “Detroit 2010: Toyota’s 2011 plug-in Prius release date is “aggressive” target,” Green Autoblog, 

January 14, 2010, http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/14/detroit-2010-toyotas-2011-plug-in-prius-releasedate-is-aggre. (last accessed July 12, 2010). 

107 “GM Plans Fuel-Cell Vehicle Pilot Program in Hawaii,” Environmental Leader, Energy & 

Environmental News for Business, May 12, 2010, http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/05/12/gmplans-fuel-cell-vehicle-pilot-program-in-hawaii/. (last accessed July 12, 2010).
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 60 of 339 

labels for EVs and PHEVs will go a long way toward preparing us to address labels from 

other advanced technologies in the future. EPA and NHTSA seek comments on whether 

there are other advanced technologies that have the potential to achieve mainstream 

interest in the near future and for which the agencies should develop labels in a future 

rulemaking. 

PHEVs and EVs represent a fundamental departure from the powertrain and 

fueling infrastructure that has exclusively dominated the U.S. market for the last 

century—a single powertrain (an internal combustion engine with a mechanical 

transmission) and a single fuel (gasoline) available at public service stations. While 

PHEVs retain this option, they also offer the consumer the option to charge the on-board 

battery from the electric grid at home and to propel the vehicle exclusively or partially by 

the battery and electric motor. An EV must be operated this way. These fundamentally 

different powertrains and refueling approaches raise many challenging issues from a 

consumer information standpoint that may affect how the agencies decide to require these 

vehicles to be labeled. 

• These technologies are still evolving. EPA has been able to test only a small 

number of these advanced technology vehicles, and it is unclear whether the 

vehicles that we have tested are a good reflection of the technologies that will 

ultimately be offered in the market. 

• Gasoline and electricity are very different automotive fuels. Gasoline is a liquid 

fuel with a high energy density that is stored on-board the vehicle in a relatively 

simple and lightweight tank that can be filled in a few minutes, while electricity is 

generated by chemical reactions inside a much lower energy density (and 

therefore heavier) battery pack and which can take many hours to recharge. 

Gasoline is produced very efficiently from crude oil, but is a less efficient vehicle 

fuel, while electricity is less efficient to produce from a wide variety of resources 

(such as coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydropower, and wind), but is a more efficient 

vehicle fuel. Approximately 80% of the “life-cycle” greenhouse gas emissions 

from a gasoline vehicle are emitted directly from the vehicle tailpipe, while all of 

the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle are 

“upstream” of the vehicle. As just one simple example, miles per gallon, the core 

metric that has been used on gasoline labels for the last 35 years, is a much more 

complicated metric for a fuel like electricity which is not measured in gallons. 

• Some advanced technologies can operate on more than one fuel, either 

simultaneously (e.g., the use of gasoline and electricity in the charge depleting 

mode of a blended PHEV) or at different times (e.g., an EREV PHEV uses 

electricity in charge depleting mode, then gasoline in hybrid mode). By itself, this 

suggests that a consumer label for a vehicle that operates on two fuels might have 

to have approximately twice as much information as a label for a vehicle that 

operates on a single fuel. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 61 of 339 

• Consumer behavior can have a much larger impact on the operation of an 

advanced technology vehicle, relative to that of a conventional vehicle. Whether 

the owner of a PHEV charges the battery every night and how many miles per day 

they drive—neither of which affects average energy consumption for a 

conventional vehicle—can have a dramatic impact on energy and environmental 

performance. Again using the standard miles per gallon of gasoline metric as an 

example, one EREV PHEV design may vary from 35 or 40 MPG on the low end 

(when the battery is empty and the vehicle is in hybrid mode) to essentially 

“infinite” MPG-gasoline if the vehicle is operated only off the battery pack. This 

fuel economy variability is much greater than with conventional vehicles, where 

MPG values for most individual vehicles are typically within 15-20% of the 

average value. 

• Consumers have no practical experience with these new technologies, or in some 

cases might not even understand the basics of how the technologies work. While 

EPA has sponsored focus groups to gauge what consumers want on advanced 

technology labels, there can be little question that consumers are in a stronger 

position to provide meaningful input on conventional labels, with which they have 

decades of experience, than on advanced technology labels, where they may not 

now know now what they will want and need to know in the future to make 

informed purchase decisions. 

All of these factors suggest that there is the likelihood of significant consumer 

confusion when multiple advanced technology vehicles begin to compete in the 

marketplace. We have no illusions that our advanced technology labels will completely 

resolve this consumer confusion, but we do hope they will help to reduce the confusion. 

We are certain that advanced technology labels will be more complicated than 

conventional vehicle labels. Just as EPA has repeatedly refined the much simpler 

conventional vehicle labels over time, the agencies expect to do so with advanced 

technology vehicle labels as well. Accordingly, while EPA and NHTSA are coproposing two specific labels for EVs and PHEVs, the agencies also seek public 

comment on as many of the key issues as possible. 

While this section will discuss EVs and EREV PHEVs as well, in many cases 

blended PHEVs will be the illustrative technology because they often raise the most 

challenging issues due to the fact that two different fuels can be used simultaneously. 

2. EPA Statutory Requirements

a. Electric Vehicles (EVs) 

Electricity is an alternative fuel under the statute and vehicles fueled only by 

alternative fuel are “dedicated automobiles.”108

b. Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) 

 

108 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) and (a)(8). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 62 of 339 

Some PHEVs are dual fueled automobiles under 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9). They are 

capable of operating on a mixture of electricity and gasoline, provide superior energy 

efficiency when operating on electricity compared to operating on gasoline, and provide 

superior efficiency when operating on a mixture of electricity and gasoline as when 

operating on gasoline.109 These vehicles also meet the requirement that a dual fueled 

automobile must meet the minimum driving range under 49 U.S.C. 32901(c).110 DOT 

has set the minimum driving range for electric vehicles at 7.5 miles on its nominal 

storage capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA urban test cycle and 10.2 miles 

on its nominal storage capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA highway test 

cycle.111 

The statute contains particular requirements for dual fueled automobile labels. 

Section 32908(b)(3) requires that each label (A) indicate the fuel economy of the 

automobile when operated on gasoline or diesel fuel, (B) clearly identify the automobile 

as a dual fueled automobile, (C) clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may 

be operated; and (D) contain a statement that additional information required by the 

statute is in the fuel economy booklet. The additional information required in the 

booklet for dual fuel automobiles is described in 32908(c)(2) and states that the label will 

include the energy efficiency and cost operation of the automobile when operated on 

gasoline as compared to when operated on alternative fuel and the driving range when 

operated on gasoline as compared to when operated on alternative fuel. It should also 

include information on the miles per gallon achieved when operated on alternative fuel 

and a statement explaining how these estimates may change when the automobile is 

operated on mixtures of alternative fuel and gasoline. 

 For simplicity and consistency, the agencies plan for all PHEV fuel economy 

labels to contain the information required for dual fueled vehicles under the statute, even 

though only some PHEVs are dual fuel automobiles. We seek comment on this 

approach. 

The fuel economy required on the label means the average number of miles 

traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) 

used.112 Therefore, in order to meet the statutory requirement that fuel economy be 

displayed on the label, the electricity use for EVs and PHEVs on the fuel economy label 

is converted to gallons of gasoline equivalent. 

EPA recognizes that the statutory requirements in the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 were adopted long before advanced technologies like EREV 

PHEVs and blended PHEVs were even conceived. While EPA must meet the statutory 

requirements, the agencies are concerned that requiring electricity to be conveyed in 

MPG equivalent values might actually make an advanced technology vehicle label less 

 

109 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9)(A), (B), (C). EPA is extending the application of the subclause (C). 110 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9)(D). 111 49 CFR 538.5(b). 112 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(11). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 63 of 339 

useful to consumers. The agencies seek public comment on this question as explained in 

more detail below. 

3. Principles Underlying the Co-Proposed Advanced Technology Vehicle 

Labels

The agencies have found it helpful to identify a few basic principles to guide our 

thinking about and development of advanced technology vehicle labels. 

• The advanced technology vehicle labels should provide objective information that 

helps consumers make good decisions for both themselves and the environment. 

The market research undertaken for this rulemaking found that the current fuel 

economy label is a trusted source of information regarding the fuel economy of 

today’s conventional gasoline vehicles and the agencies seek to build on this 

foundation by ensuring that consumers receive objective, useful and essential 

information that helps inform their advanced technology vehicle purchasing 

decisions.113 The agencies recognize that many of the most important drivers for 

the public and private interest in advanced vehicle technologies are in fact related 

to energy and environmental considerations. 

• The advanced technology vehicle labels should aim for the simplest way to 

provide fairly complex information. As discussed above in the introduction to this 

section and with specific examples later in this section, the agencies are aware 

that advanced technology vehicle labels will inherently be more complex than 

conventional vehicle labels. We strive to strike a balance between providing 

sufficient information to be helpful and credible (too simple runs the risk of 

misinformation with such complex technologies), without trying to “do 

everything” on the label (which could be a source of confusion for many 

consumers). We believe that automakers and respected third-party organizations 

(and possibly the federal government via fueleconomy.gov or other websites) will 

develop sophisticated on-line (and possibly on-vehicle) calculators that will allow 

consumers to customize energy, environmental, and cost information for their 

unique driving and battery re-charging habits. We believe that labels should be 

aimed at the consumer who wants a quick overview of energy, environmental, and 

cost performance, and that those consumers who want detailed, customized 

information will look to other sources. 

• The advanced technology vehicle labels must be as equitable as possible across 

different technologies, both advanced and conventional. For example, the 

agencies want to avoid picking a label design or label metric that inherently 

favors a certain advanced technology beyond the energy and environmental merits 

of the individual vehicles. There could be considerable consumer confusion when 

multiple advanced technology vehicles reach the market, each with their own 

marketing strategy, and labels are one way to minimize consumer confusion. We 

 

113 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report, 

EPA420-R-10-907, August 2010, p. 5. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 64 of 339 

specifically solicit comments from automakers on whether we have achieved this 

goal of equity with our proposed label designs. 

• Finally, while labels should provide one or more metrics to compare across 

vehicle technologies, both advanced and conventional, the advanced technology 

vehicle labels do not have to have the same precise design as conventional vehicle 

labels. Given that many of the label content issues associated with advanced 

vehicle technologies are much more complex than for conventional vehicles, it 

would probably be impossible for the labels to look the same. On the other hand, 

we do want the “look and feel” of the advanced technology and conventional 

vehicle labels to be as consistent as possible. 

EPA and NHTSA seek public comment on the appropriateness of each of these 

principles, and whether there are additional principles that we should consider. 

4. Key Advanced Technology Vehicle Label Issues

 Most of the content on advanced technology vehicle labels will be similar to that 

on conventional vehicle labels. This section addresses those issues that are unique to 

advanced technology vehicle labels. 

a. Upstream Emissions 

This section discusses how the agencies plan to address the issue of greenhouse 

gas emissions associated with the use of motor vehicles, in the context of a program 

specifically designed to provide consumers with information that will be useful when 

purchasing a vehicle. The agencies’ approach takes into account (1) the statutory 

language, (2) the fact that the law requires a great deal of information to be presented on 

the label, (3) the limited amount of information that can be provided on a label, (4) the 

importance of simplicity, clarity, accuracy, and intelligibility on the label, and (5) the 

ability to provide the public with additional and comprehensive information in a 

consumer-friendly format on a website.114 This discussion focuses on, but is not limited 

to, the advanced technology vehicles that use electricity from the grid to power vehicles, 

such as the electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids that are expected to enter the market in 

larger numbers in the coming years; the discussion also refers to the use of renewable 

fuels in gasoline-powered vehicles. 

For reasons outlined below, our proposed approach would limit the label to 

tailpipe-only emissions while providing much fuller information on a website. But we 

also identify, and seek comments on, alternative approaches, designed to accommodate 

the relevant variables. 

The agencies believe that the proposed approach follows from a reasonable 

interpretation of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the 

 

114 On the relationship between summary disclosure, as on the label, and full disclosure, as on the website, 

see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/disclosure_principles.pdf. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 65 of 339 

Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. The statute states that NHTSA 

must require vehicles to be labeled with information “reflecting an automobile’s 

performance ... [with respect to] greenhouse gas ... emissions ... of the automobile.”115 

This information is to be based on criteria developed by EPA. NHTSA believes that a 

reasonable interpretation of this provision is that only GHG emissions directly from the 

vehicle itself are required for the label. On that interpretation, the information on 

performance and the rating of the vehicles would both be based on the emissions of the 

vehicle itself. This interpretation is also consistent with the history of the EPA labeling 

program and its focus on the vehicle itself. NHTSA believes that it would also be 

reasonable to interpret the statutory language such that the required label information on 

GHG emissions would include additional information on the upstream GHG emissions 

associated with electricity or other fuels used by the vehicle. This additional information 

could provide a broader context for reflecting the automobile’s performance with respect 

to GHG emissions. 

The agencies recognize that “lifecycle” GHG emissions are associated with the 

production and distribution of all automotive fuels used by motor vehicles. Lifecycle 

GHG emissions are associated with gasoline, diesel, and other fuels such as natural gas, 

electricity, and renewable biofuels. The agencies also recognize that while tailpipe-only 

emissions provide important information, a significant number of consumers may want, 

or benefit from, access to information on the total upstream GHG emissions associated 

with the operation of their vehicles. For example, electric vehicles do not have any 

tailpipe emissions since their motors do not burn fuel, but producing the electricity used 

to power such vehicles most likely emits greenhouse gases. Consumers might seek, or 

benefit from, a label that allows for simple and accurate comparisons across vehicles on 

the total upstream GHG emissions, in addition to tailpipe emissions. However, the 

agencies emphasize that developing the relevant information, and providing it to 

consumers in a manner that is accurate and meaningful, raises a number of challenging 

issues, particularly in the context of the label. 

A full lifecycle evaluation would include an evaluation of a comprehensive set of 

GHG and energy impacts associated with both the vehicle (extraction and processing of 

materials, energy used in assembly, distribution, use, and disposal, etc.), and the fuel 

(feedstock extraction, feedstock transport, fuel processing, fuel transport, etc.). In 

practice, however, offering even the more limited accounting for GHG emissions from 

production and distribution of the fuel, including electricity, presents complex challenges. 

EPA currently does not measure fuel combustion/electricity generation GHG emissions 

in its vehicle testing. The agencies recognize that modeling can be performed to assist in 

estimating these emissions. But in developing upstream GHG emissions values, 

modeling would need to be done carefully to avoid inaccuracy and consumer confusion, 

especially in light of variations across time and across regions. For example, GHG 

emissions from electricity generation will vary significantly in the future, based on the 

 

115 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i). 49 U.S.C.32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) also refers to GHG “emissions of 

automobiles,” and further requires a designation of automobiles “with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions 

over the useful life of the vehicles.” 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 66 of 339 

different fuels used at generating stations -- perhaps by as much as an order of magnitude 

between coal and non-fossil feedstocks. 

It is true that the EPA has undertaken extensive lifecycle modeling of biofuels for 

the Renewable Fuel Standard rulemaking in response to the requirements of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act. But that assessment was done in the context of the 

particular mix of biofuels required nationally in 2022 by the Act, with a series of 

assumptions and estimates that may not be accurate today. 

One overriding issue is whether the agencies could reasonably provide a single, 

national value for GHG emissions from electricity generation or could provide instead 

different values customized for various regions of the country.116 There are data sources 

upon which a single national number could be derived. For individual owners, however, a 

single national value would generally not be accurate, and the individual would need 

access to additional information, such as regional values, to evaluate the impact of a 

specific vehicle.117 In addition, the agencies would have to decide (1) whether to use 

average or marginal (i.e., reflecting the fact that increased vehicle demand might change 

the overall mix of electricity sources) GHG emissions factors, and (2) if the marginal 

approach is used, whether to assume all nighttime charging or a mix of daytime and 

nighttime charging. Another major consideration is whether to base electricity generation 

GHG emissions values on today's electricity markets or on projected changes in 

electricity markets that might occur by 2020 or some other year (note that vehicles 

produced in the next few years will remain in the fleet for 15 or 20 years or more). 

Some states have already passed legislation that could require major changes in 

how electricity is produced in those states in the future, and Congress has considered 

landmark legislation as well. It is clear that the question of how electricity will be 

produced in the future is very fluid. As a result of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act biofuel mandates, for example, the agencies expect the amount of biofuel in the 

transportation fuel market to increase significantly over time, and the contribution of 

feedstocks to change over that time as well. Information that addresses lifecycle 

emissions of biofuels would need to take these considerations into account. 

The agencies believe that all of these complex factors can be best addressed by 

providing a great deal of relevant information on a website, which can go into 

considerable detail and be changed and updated as appropriate. We currently do not have 

a full lifecycle analysis from which to draw for labeling purposes across the full range of 

vehicles and fuels. The information reported to EPA on emissions from fuel production 

varies across fuel types and is much more detailed for gasoline production. At the present 

time, it would be difficult to represent emissions from energy generation on a national 

label in a way that is both useful and accurate for consumers, given regional variations, 

how generation within regions is dispatched, and access to green power purchases. 

 

116 See http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states for an 

overview of the national U.S. electric power industry net generation by fuel type. 

117 Regional values could be provided on a web site. EPA has a website 

(http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html) on which consumers can enter their zip 

code and find out what fuel mix is used to produce the electricity they use. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 67 of 339 

 Therefore, EPA and NHTSA are proposing that the label should limit itself to 

tailpipe only emissions (clearly identified as such) and include a more complete 

discussion on energy generation and lifecycle analysis on the webpage. We believe that 

this approach will prove sufficiently informative to consumers. It also allows us the 

opportunity to provide a fuller discussion of GHG emissions associated with energy 

generation for alternative vehicles, as well as emissions from fuel production (gasoline 

and biofuels). For example, a website could provide calculator tools that could reflect 

regional variations in the GHG emissions associated with electricity generation as well as 

use national averages. A website could also provide information on the projected fuel 

lifecycle impacts associated with biofuels. The website could be updated over time as the 

mix of electricity fuel sources and biofuels changes. This approach could help the 

consumer understand over the lifetime of their vehicles how their electricity generation 

emissions impacts might be changing. 

At this point in time, any effort to provide complete lifecycle information for fuels 

on the label could well produce undue confusion. A label that clearly presents tailpipe 

emissions appears to be the best available way to combine accuracy and disclosure, so 

long as fuller information is available on the website. The agencies believe that even 

though many consumers will not visit the website, it will be used by many groups and 

organizations, and as a result, the information that it provides will be made available and 

used in the marketplace. We seek comment on our current view that the web is the better 

place, compared to the label, to address the complex issues associated with emissions 

associated with electricity generation and lifecycle emissions more generally. 

We invite both general and particular comments on the proposed approach. For 

example, we encourage commenters to be as specific as possible with any 

recommendations on how to address fuel combustion/electricity generation GHG 

emissions on the website. If information on these emissions is to be provided on a 

website, exactly what information? The agencies specifically invite comment on how to 

address fuel combustion emissions associated with the electricity used to power the 

advanced technology vehicles starting to enter commerce, such as electric vehicles (EVs) 

and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). The agencies also invite comment on how to 

address full GHG emissions from biofuels on a website. Should emissions be identified 

specifically for the emissions associated with the combustion of fuel to produce 

electricity? Should such emissions be determined on a regional or a national basis? 

Should these emissions be provided as a relative comparison to a gasoline or diesel fuel, 

the current predominant fuels? 

For the convenience of commenters, we have prepared the table below as an 

illustrative example of one simplified way that some lifecycle emissions information 

related to electricity production could be accounted for on a website, based on certain 

assumptions.118 It is important to note that for comparison purposes, the agencies would 

 

118 The key assumptions underlying the illustrative numbers in the right-hand column are that:EV and 

PHEVs all assumed to use 200 Watt-hours per mile when operating on electricity over the EPA test and 

assuming a 30% range (43% electricity consumption) shortfall from test to road. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 68 of 339 

need to develop methodologies to compare upstream emissions impacts from all other 

fuels as well, including diesel, renewable fuels, and natural gas. Consistent with the 

discussion above, it is important to emphasize that the tailpipe + lifecycle values in the 

table below are based on 2005 national average electricity GHG emissions, and could be 

very different for certain regions of the country today and for the nation in the future if 

there are major changes in the mix of methods used to generate electricity or in the GHG 

emissions associated with its generation. 

 Proposal--TailpipeOnly Tailpipe + Upstream 

Vehicle CO2/mile CO2/mile 

Example EV 0 197 

Example PHEV 1 89 210 

Example PHEV2 133 217 

Toyota Prius HEV 178 224 

Honda Civic HEV 212 266 

Honda Insight HEV 217 273 

Ford Fusion HEV 228 287 

In general, for purposes of providing information on the web, the agencies invite 

comment on the appropriate metrics to use and the specific suggestions for content and 

format, if appropriate. The agencies also request comment on which web resources it 

should prioritize for development that would provide the most useful information to 

consumers. 

The agencies acknowledge that more consumers will look at the label than at the 

website, and that a “0” figure for GHG emissions might prove confusing to some 

consumers. While accurate and more complete information will be provided on the 

website, putting 0 grams CO2/mile on the label may lead some consumers to perceive 

that driving their EV does not contribute to GHG emissions. With respect to the label 

itself, the agencies are also requesting comment on alternative options for the label that, 

in addition to presenting tailpipe emissions, refer to or identify in some manner the 

emissions associated with the lifecycle of the fuel. Under one version of this alternative 

that is under serious consideration, similar to a co-proposal, the EV label would continue 

to reflect the "0" CO2g/mile number currently displayed on the co-proposed labels 

(Figures III-2, III-10), but the label would be modified by adding either a symbol or an 

asterisk and explanatory text which states, "The only C02 emissions are from electricity 

generation." Likewise, the agencies would modify the co-proposed PHEV labels 

 

• PHEV 1 assumed to operate on electricity 50% of the time. 

• PHEV 2 assumed to operate on electricity 25% of the time. 

• Uses 2005 nationwide average value of 0.642 grams of GHG per Watt-hour at powerplant 

(adjusted to include GHG emissions from feedstock extraction, transportation, and processing as 

well) from MY2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG final rule (75 Federal Register 25437). 

• Assumes typical 7% electricity grid transmission losses. 

• Uses 2250 grams GHG per gallon of gasoline.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 69 of 339 

(Figures III-3, III-6, III-1, III-12) inserting either a symbol or asterisk next to the current 

CO2g/mile number displayed with the following explanatory text, “Does not include 

CO2 from electricity generation.” 

This alternative approach might provide more accuracy and clarity for purchasers 

by more explicitly indicating that the CO2 emissions from generation of electricity are 

not reflected in the CO2 numbers on the label. Under this alternative, FFV labels (for 

FFV vehicles only) would continue to reflect the gasoline only CO2g/mile number 

currently displayed on the co-proposed labels (Figures III-8 and III-14), but the label (for 

FFVs only) would be modified by adding either a symbol or an asterisk and explanatory 

text that might state, “The CO2 emissions listed here are from gasoline combustion only. 

They do not reflect the use of renewable biofuels.” The agencies request comment on 

this alternative option. 

The agencies are also giving consideration to an approach that in addition to the 

tailpipe emissions, includes information on upstream emissions on the label for the 

various fuels. For electric vehicles, for example, GHG emissions are (on an average 

basis) a function of KwH per mile, and thus could in principle be calculated, and if a full 

or nearly full accounting could be provided in a clear and intelligible form, there would 

be advantages to providing it on the label to consumers, in addition to the tailpipe 

emissions data. Therefore, the agencies invite comment on the feasibility and usefulness 

of an alternative approach that in addition to identifying tailpipe emissions, would 

include a separate value for upstream emissions on the label as well as on the website. 

In particular, the agencies invite comment on what type of information should be 

considered as “upstream,” and whether a label including the upstream emissions could be 

based on national averages. The agencies might consider making assumptions to develop 

national averages. 

Note, however, that agencies would need to make a substantial number of 

assumptions to develop such averages. These include assumptions about the overall 

impact on electric car recharging on the grid mix, which would include making 

assumptions about (1) the time-of-day distribution of recharging and (2) the subsequent 

impacts on the base and peak load electricity generation as well as (3) the nature of 

regional variability and (4) potential changes in the electricity generation fleet. A 

relevant source for this type of information may be the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), which provides estimates of the future electricity generation mix, 

so there may be some basis for estimating future GHG emissions based on current state 

and federal policies; but these estimates will also rest on some uncertain assumptions. 

The same type of analysis (national averages for feedstocks and fuel production) would 

need to be developed and equivalent assumptions made related to upstream emissions 

from gasoline and diesel production as well as renewable fuels, natural gas, and 

hydrogen. 

The agencies invite comments on whether and how the possible inclusion of 

upstream emissions information on the label might affect other elements of the label such 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 70 of 339 

as design, format, presentation of the various ratings and other information as well as the 

ranking of vehicles on the label. 

The agencies also recognize that notwithstanding the many challenges, a potential 

advantage of including upstream emissions on the label is that consumers may be able to 

compare different EVs with respect to their upstream emissions, as some will require 

more energy per mile which would likely result in different upstream emissions impacts. 

Consumers may be able to make similar comparisons among EVs, PHEVs, gasoline and 

diesel powered vehicles as well as other fueled vehicles on the basis of upstream 

emissions. Regardless of what would be presented on the label, the agencies will continue 

to provide detailed information about the lifecycle GHG impacts of different vehicles on 

the website in a way that may provide a better way for individuals to take their region, 

driving habits, and other specific factors into account in their purchase decisions. 

In view of the many assumptions the agencies would need to make to include 

upstream emissions on the label, we emphasize that this alternative would have to 

overcome several serious challenges. We ask for comment on whether and how each of 

those challenges, outlined above, could be addressed. 

b. Energy Consumption Metrics 

Energy consumption metrics are another issue which becomes more complicated 

with advanced technology vehicles. For conventional gasoline vehicles, the MPG metric 

has been the foundation of the consumer label for 35 years. It is not a perfect metric, and 

some have expressed concerns about its “non-linearity,” e.g., the absolute fuel 

consumption savings associated with improving one mile per gallon from 10-11 MPG is 

over ten times greater than the fuel consumption savings associated with improving from 

35-36 MPG as discussed above. But, in some respects, MPG has been a good metric for 

a consumer information program: lay people had used the MPG metric prior to its use on 

the label, the concept was simple and understood by almost all consumers, the practical 

range of 10-50 MPG was accessible to lay people and facilitated simple calculations that 

most consumers could perform, etc. The results from recent EPA focus groups 

conducted by the agencies were unequivocal—the MPG values were, by far, the most 

trusted and useful values on the label.119

Unfortunately, while the miles per gallon metric has been very useful when 99+% 

of all vehicles operated on petroleum fuels, its usefulness as a metric is less clear for a 

future vehicle fuel such as electricity, which is not measured in gallons, but rather in 

kilowatt-hours. Therefore, for an electric vehicle, or for an EREV PHEV when operated 

exclusively on grid electricity, there are three broad choices for a consumption metric, 

independent of statutory considerations, to characterize the amount of electricity and all 

have advantages and disadvantages: 

 

119Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010,

 p. 10. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 71 of 339 

• Kilowatt-hours. The rationale for kilowatt-hours is that this is the metric by 

which electricity is “counted” and sold. In their monthly utility bills, 

consumers are charged a certain rate (or price) per kilowatt-hour, and this rate 

is multiplied by the number of kilowatt-hours that the consumer uses, to 

generate the overall monthly electricity bill. This is analogous to what 

happens at a gasoline service station, where a consumer pays a certain rate (or 

price) per gallon of gasoline, and this rate is multiplied by the number of 

gallons of gasoline that the consumer buys, to generate the overall gasoline 

bill. The primary argument against using kilowatt-hours is that the focus 

groups conducted by the agencies clearly indicates that few consumers 

understand what a kilowatt-hour is, and most of the consumers who do not 

know what a kilowatt-hour is say that they do not want to learn.120

• Gallons of gasoline-equivalent. From an engineering perspective, energy can 

be measured, and different forms of energy can be compared through the use 

of energy unit conversion factors. For example, a gallon of gasoline has the 

energy equivalent of 33.7 kilowatt-hours, and any value for kilowatt-hours can 

be converted to an energy-equivalent value of gallons of gasoline.121 For 

example, a vehicle that used 33.7 kilowatt-hours would have used an amount 

of energy equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline, while a vehicle that used twice as 

much electricity would have used an amount of energy equivalent to 2 gallons 

of gasoline. The rationale for using gallons of gasoline-equivalent is that 

consumers understand the concept of “gallons” much more than they 

understand any other energy metric. In the focus groups conducted for this 

rulemaking, the agencies found that participants believed they understood the 

equivalency approach and felt comfortable with this metric since it closely 

aligns with the miles per gallon metric that they have always relied upon.122 

The primary argument against using gallons of gasoline-equivalent is that the 

concept requires the conversion of one form of energy to another, and while 

this reflects a technical measurement of energy equivalency, it may or may 

not be useful to the consumer. For example, gasoline and electricity are very 

different fuels in many ways: how they are produced, how consumers buy 

them and refuel, whether consumer fuel expenditures stay in the local or 

regional economy or are exported, etc. 

• A generic energy unit not directly connected to either gasoline or electricity, 

such as British Thermal Units (BTUs) or joules. The argument here would be 

to pick an energy metric that is “fuel neutral.” The primary arguments against 

this are both that few consumers understand such a metric, and that no motor 

 

120 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, 

August 2010 and Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-

R-10-905, August 2010. 

121 65 FR 36990. 122 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, 

August 2010, p. 22. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 72 of 339 

fuels are counted or sold in such units. While the agencies recognize this as 

another conceptual alternative, we have rejected this approach. 

As discussed previously, EPCA requires that electricity use for EVs and PHEVs 

on the fuel economy label is converted to gallons of gasoline-equivalent. But the statute 

also provides discretion to EPA on the relative prominence of a gallons of gasolineequivalent metric and a kilowatt-hours metric. 

For EV labels, the agencies propose to show electricity consumption in both 

metrics: as miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (MPGe) and as kilowatt-hours per 

100 miles. The agencies recognize that higher MPGe values are better, while lower kwhr/100 miles values are better. The agencies seek comment on whether this is helpful or 

confusing to consumers. 

 The most complicated advanced technology vehicle in this regard is a blended 

PHEV that is operating simultaneously on gasoline and grid electricity. There are two 

options for energy metrics for blended PHEVs, which are based on the general concepts 

introduced above. 

• Retain separate energy metrics for gasoline and electricity. The gasoline metric 

would continue to be miles per gallon of gasoline (supplemented by a gallons/100 

miles consumption value as well), while the electricity metric would be kilowatthours of electricity (either miles per kilowatt-hour or kilowatt-hours per 100 

miles). The advantages of this approach are 1) it includes the values that EPA 

measures, 2) the metrics reflect how these forms of energy are counted and how 

consumers pay for them, 3) the separate values do not require judgments about 

whether consumers “value” gasoline and electricity equally or not, and 4) it would 

avoid possible confusion over what a combined miles per gallon of gasolineequivalent value means (i.e., some, maybe many, consumers would probably 

assume that a miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent value was equal to a miles 

per gallon of gasoline value, which would be inaccurate). The disadvantages of 

such an approach are 1) few consumers understand the metric of kilowatt-hours, 

2) dual energy metrics make it extremely difficult to compare energy efficiency 

across vehicles, and 3) those consumers who focus only on miles per gallon of 

gasoline and ignore kilowatt-hours of electricity, will believe that a blended 

PHEV is more energy efficient than it actually is. 

• Combine to a single energy metric of miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent. 

This would require the use of the conversion factor of 33.7 kilowatt-hours per 

gallon of gasoline-equivalent value cited above. The advantages of this approach 

are 1) it yields a single value that simplifies the label and facilitates vehicle 

comparisons, 2) it avoids the kilowatt-hour metric that consumers do not like or 

understand, and 3) some consumers (though not all) said they liked the concept of 

miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent. The disadvantages of such an approach 

are 1) it requires the simplifying assumption that all forms of energy (in this case, 

gasoline and electricity) are equally valued, 2) it does not allow the consumer to 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 73 of 339 

see the individual energy consumption values for gasoline and electricity, and 3) 

it will yield labels with both miles per gallon of gasoline and miles per gallon of 

gasoline-equivalent, which could be confusing to some consumers. 

The agencies are proposing to use the miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent 

metric only for PHEVs, but seek public comment on the relative merits of doing so 

versus using the separate energy metrics. The agencies believe that both approaches have 

advantages and disadvantages. In formulating comments on this topic, commenters could 

also consider three additional questions. One, do consumers care equally about gasoline 

and electricity, i.e., are they just two different ways of fueling their vehicles, with a Btu 

of gasoline equivalent to a Btu of electricity, or do some or most consumers care more 

about one or the other form of energy? Two, how should the agencies interpret the focus 

group input in which most participants indicated that they did not understand kilowatthours on their electric bills and did not want to have this metric included on advanced 

vehicle labels? Three, should we view this as an opportunity to educate consumers about 

the importance of kilowatt-hours as a fundamental measurement of electricity 

consumption? 

c. Driving Range Information (including 5-Cycle Adjustment) 

 EPA does not include range information on conventional fuel economy labels. 

Petroleum fuels have high energy densities and are stored on-board the vehicle in 

relatively cheap and lightweight fuel tanks. The combination of high driving range 

values (gasoline vehicles typically have ranges of 300-500 miles) and the fact that range 

can be increased by simply increasing the size of the fuel tank, means that range for 

petroleum-fueled vehicles has not been a top consumer priority. In recognition of the fact 

that non-petroleum fuels generally have lower energy densities resulting in reduced 

driving ranges than petroleum fuels, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires a 

label that lists the “manufacturer’s estimated cruising range” for alternative-fueled 

vehicles. 123

 The primary issue addressed in this section is whether range should be included 

on advanced technology vehicle labels. For an EV, the primary range parameter of 

interest would be the miles that can be traveled between battery charges. For an EREV 

PHEV, the most important range parameter would be the miles that can be traveled in allelectric mode. For a blended PHEV, the primary range parameter would be the number 

of miles over which the battery is providing assistance in the form of grid electricity, but 

it is also possible that there could be some guaranteed or likely all-electric range as well. 

The primary arguments for including range include 1) focus groups strongly 

supported including the range for EVs and PHEVs,124 2) range is a critical factor for what 

the consumer gets for his or her investment in a more expensive EV or PHEV, and is 

obviously a core utility attribute for an EV and a primary determinant of the overall 

 

123 16 CFR part 309. 124 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, 

August 2010, pp 17, 28, and 38. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 74 of 339 

environmental and energy performance of a PHEV, and 3) EPA can easily measure 

range. 

The arguments against including range include 1) it is not a direct measurement of 

energy or environmental performance (in fact, for an EV, other things being equal, a 

higher range means a larger battery pack, a heavier vehicle, and therefore higher energy 

consumption, relative to the same vehicle with a lower range and smaller battery pack), 

2) there will likely be much greater variability in EV range than we have faced with 

gasoline fuel economy in the past, so there are greater challenges involved in defining a 

specific range estimate, and 3) adding range would add to an already busy label. 

The agencies are proposing to include range information on alternative 

technology vehicle labels and seek public comment on this issue. 

A related issue is how EPA will determine the appropriate adjustment factor to 

use in converting 2-cycle test values for range to 5-cycle test values for vehicle labels. 

Under current EPA regulations established by the 2006 fuel economy label rulemaking, 

automakers would have two choices: 1) submitting 5-cycle test data, and 2) using the 

MPG-based (derived 5-cycle) equations.125 Using the MPG-based equations for EVs 

would yield an approximate 40 percent downward adjustment for EV range.126 EPA 

notes that there were no EV or PHEV data in the database used to generate the MPGbased equations, and that the downward adjustment appropriate for EVs (which have low 

direct vehicle energy consumption levels) is the result of extrapolating the results of the 

conventional vehicle data that was used to generate the equations. 

EPA proposes a new set of options for automakers to choose for purposes of 

identifying the appropriate 5-cycle range adjustment for EVs and the electric portion of 

PHEV operation. One, automakers could provide full 5-cycle test data, which is one 

option under current EPA regulations. Two, automakers could provide vehicle-specific 

real world range data collected from in-use vehicles. Three, automakers could use the 

MPG-based equations discussed above, but with the downward adjustment capped at the 

percent reduction represented by the worst-case gasoline vehicle in the EPA database. 

The worst-case gasoline vehicle is the highest-MPG gasoline vehicle, which is currently 

the Toyota Prius. Based on the application of the MPG-based equations to the Prius’ 

MPG values, the Prius would get about a 30% downward adjustment from its 2-cycle 

data to its derived 5-cycle value, and this would therefore be the level that automakers 

could use for EVs and the electric operation of PHEVs. 

EPA seeks comment on this proposal for the downward 5-cycle adjustment for 

EVs and PHEVs. 

 

125 71 FR77887-77888, Dec 27, 2006. 126 See 40 CFR 600.210-08. Using the equations in these regulations to adjust 2-cycle test values for 

extremely high MPG vehicles (or MPGe for EVs) will result in adjustments approaching 40 percent. 

Because the data used to determine these equations did not include any such vehicles, EPA is uncertain as 

to the applicability of the formulae to EVs and other extremely high MPG vehicles. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 75 of 339 

d. Battery Charging Time Information 

EPA does not include information on the mechanisms for or time associated with 

refueling vehicles on conventional vehicle fuel economy labels. Refueling with 

petroleum fuels is a fairly quick and ubiquitous process, and has not been a topic of 

consumer concern. Refueling, or charging, a battery pack will be different in many ways. 

While gasoline vehicle refueling typically takes 5-10 minutes, charging a battery pack 

can take up to 12 hours or more, depending on the charging hardware. EPA focus group 

participants expressed strong interest in including some type of information on charging 

time on labels for EVs and PHEVs.127

 The arguments for including battery charging time information on EV and PHEV 

labels include 1) focus groups supported doing so, 2) it is a core consumer utility 

parameter (i.e., if the charging time is so long as to be onerous, consumers will recharge 

less frequently and this will have an effect on the vehicle’s energy and environmental 

performance), and 3) EPA could develop a test procedure for generating standardized 

information. 

An example of a simple approach for measuring EV recharge time would be to 

use the method for recharging the battery recommended by the manufacturer and 

available to the consumer. Full battery recharge time could be defined as the time 

required to charge the vehicle battery to full capacity from the end of the electric vehicle 

range test or “empty.” A fully charged battery would be defined as the same battery state 

of charge used to determine electric vehicle range. EPA is also seeking comment on 

partial recharge time. Partial recharge time could be measured and expressed as the time 

of recharge required to travel a given distance. 

Arguments for excluding battery charging time on EV and PHEV labels include 

1) there is only an indirect relationship between charging time and energy and 

environmental performance, 2) EPA does not now have a test procedure for generating 

standardized data, 3) it will be fairly easy for consumers and third parties to verify 

automaker claims on this basic question, and 4) adding battery charging time will make 

the advanced technology vehicle labels more cluttered. 

The agencies seek comments on whether we should include battery charging time 

information on labels for EVs and PHEVs. 

 

e. Merged Vehicle Operating Mode Information for PHEVs 

Conventional vehicles have a single “operating mode,” i.e., all the powertrain 

components contribute to propel the vehicle at all times. Some advanced technology 

vehicles have more than one operating mode. For example, a blended PHEV could have 

up to three operating modes: an all-electric mode where the vehicle is propelled 

exclusively by grid electricity via the battery and electric motor, a second mode where 

 

127 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, 

August 2010, pp. 16, 26, and 38. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 76 of 339 

the vehicle is propelled by a combination of both grid electricity and an internal 

combustion engine, and a third mode that uses only the internal combustion engine. For 

such vehicles, the agencies propose to provide consumers with basic performance 

information about each of the PHEV’s individual operating modes. One advantage of 

this approach is that it will allow consumers to tailor the information from the individual 

operating modes to their own driving habits, and therefore develop “customized” 

information relevant to their own situations. One issue is whether the vehicle label 

should also provide information that combines the various operating modes into a single 

“merged” value reflecting an “average driver.” One group that is developing guidance 

for how individual operating mode data could be combined for an “average driver” is the 

Society of Automotive Engineers Hybrid Technical Standards Committee,128 and the 

agencies will continue to monitor the work of this and other relevant committees. 

The rationale for including a merged value is that 1) some consumers may find 

information on the individual operating modes to be “too much” and may be more likely 

to pay attention to a single set of performance information, 2) few, if any, consumers will 

exclusively drive in a single operating mode, so some kind of combined information 

could be helpful, and 3) a single, merged value can facilitate comparisons across different 

vehicle technologies and models and 4). Customers of this new technology will not know 

how much they will operate the vehicle in each mode, so an average provides more 

complete information to them. 

The arguments against including merged values are 1) the variability between the 

performance values for different operating modes can be very large, and so any 

assumptions about an “average driver” will be accurate for some consumers, but very 

inaccurate for many other consumers, and 2) including merged values, in addition to 

individual operating mode values, will add to an already busy label. 

The agencies seek public comment on the question of whether labels for advanced 

technology vehicles with multiple operating modes should also include merged values 

that combines the various vehicle operating modes, and if so, on the best methodology for 

doing so. 

f. City/Highway versus Combined Values 

EPA’s conventional vehicle labels have long reported fuel economy values for 

both city and highway driving. For most conventional vehicles, highway fuel economy 

values are typically 40-50% higher than city fuel economy values. The agencies believe 

that this is another issue that is worth reexamining with respect to advanced technology 

vehicle labels. 

Arguments for including separate city and highway information on advanced 

technology vehicle labels include 1) focus group feedback and other research has 

consistently shown that consumers find it useful to have separate fuel economy values for 

 

128 SAE J2841. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 77 of 339 

both city and highway driving for conventional vehicles,129 and 2) since driving habits 

can vary widely, separate city and highway performance information can be helpful to 

those consumers who want to “customize” label information to their own driving habits. 

Arguments for not including separate city and highway information on advanced 

technology vehicle labels include 1) some advanced technologies, for example EVs, 

show less of a change in energy consumption values between city and highway driving 

than do conventional vehicles which was one of the primary reasons why EPA originally 

displayed separate city and highway MPG values on conventional fuel economy labels, 

and 2) not reporting separate city and highway values can reduce some information by 

either a factor of two (if a combined value is shown instead of separate city and highway 

values) or three (if city, highway, and combined values were all shown), thus reducing 

the “number of numbers” on the label and possibly making the labels more readable and 

accessible for consumers. Focus group participants, when viewing whole labels for both 

conventional and advanced technology vehicles, did not express a preference for 

displaying city/highway numbers for advanced technology vehicles, although they did 

express a clear preference for city/highway values for conventional vehicles. 

The agencies seek public comment on the following questions related to separate 

city and highway information for advanced technology vehicle labels. One, should EPA 

never report separate city and highway values, always report separate city and highway 

values, or retain discretion for doing so only when it is appropriate (i.e., when the 

differences between city and highway are significant enough to be meaningful)? Two, 

would it be acceptable for EPA to require the use of separate city and highway fuel 

economy values for conventional vehicles, but to not do so, in some or all cases, for 

advanced technology vehicles? 

g. Methodology for Merged Values for PHEVs 

One specific issue for PHEVs is the methodology for determining a single merged 

value that combines the various operating modes into a single overall value, given that 

PHEVs use both gasoline and grid electricity. The agencies expect that consumers who 

purchase a PHEV will do so with the intention of utilizing the capability of both fuels 

(e.g., it seems reasonable to assume that most consumers who purchase a more expensive 

PHEV would then charge the PHEV as frequently as possible in order to achieve fuel 

savings by maximizing their use of electricity and minimizing their use of gasoline). It 

thus seems appropriate to include the operation on both fuels in any merged values, using 

a weighted average of the appropriate metric for each of the modes of operation. The 

agencies propose and seek comment on using a methodology developed by SAE and 

DOE based on utility factors (UFs) - which predict the fractions of total distance driven 

in each mode of operation (electricity and gas) - to assign weighting factors for gasoline 

and electricity use for PHEVs for the purposes of determining merged values for fuel 

economy and/or greenhouse gas ratings and for any other metrics for which a single, 

 

129 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, 

August 2010 and Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-

R-10-905, August 2010, p. 12. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 78 of 339 

merged value is appropriate. The proposed UF methodology is described in detail in 

Section VI.B. 

h. Advertising Restrictions 

The federal lead on guidelines for the use of vehicle label information in 

automaker marketing campaigns rests with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The 

agencies believe that the unique issues, as well as in the likely increased complexity and 

“number of numbers,” associated with advanced technology vehicle labels, warrant 

additional consideration of whether there needs to be new guidelines for the use of label 

information in private marketing campaigns. The agencies intend to raise this issue with 

the FTC, and seek comments from the public that could help inform our input to the FTC. 

C. Labels for Other Vehicle/Fuel Technologies 

Labels for conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles and for certain advanced 

technology vehicles are the primary focus of this proposed rule. Conventional gasoline 

and diesel vehicles are expected to make up a majority of the fleet well into the future, 

and improving on the communication of conventional vehicle fuel economy and related 

information is a continued priority of EPA and NHTSA. Electric vehicles and plug-in 

hybrid electric vehicles are entering the fleet in the near term, and there is the potential 

for a rapidly increasing market penetration of these vehicles in the future, yet labeling 

these vehicles in an understandable and equitable way presents significant challenges. 

However, there are several other specific vehicle technologies for which EPA currently 

has labels, and EPA is also proposing new label templates for those as well. 

1. Flexible Fuel Vehicles

Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) (also called flex-fuel, dual-fueled or bi-fueled 

vehicles) are vehicles that can operate either on gasoline or diesel fuel, on an alternative 

fuel such as ethanol or methanol, or on a mixture of conventional and alternative fuels. 

Produced since the 1980s, flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are the most numerous of the 

currently available alternative fuel vehicles, with dozens of 2010 car and truck models 

available from General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Mazda, Mercedes, Nissan, and Toyota. 

Essentially all FFVs today are E85 vehicles, which can run on a mixture of up to 85 

percent ethanol and gasoline. These vehicles are considered “dual fueled vehicles” under 

EPCA, which states that the label for dual fuel vehicles must: 

‘‘(A) indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated on gasoline or 

diesel fuel; 

(B) clearly identify the automobile as a dual fueled automobile; 

(C) clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may be operated; and 

(D) contain a statement informing the consumer that the additional information 

required by subsection (c)(2) of this section is published and distributed by the 

Secretary of Energy.’’130

 

130 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 79 of 339 

The current labeling requirements for dual-fueled vehicles are consistent with these 

requirements. While not required, manufacturers may voluntarily include the fuel 

economy estimates (and estimated annual fuel costs) for the alternative fuel on the label, 

in addition to the gasoline information.131 Consumers can view the gasoline and E85 fuel 

economy estimates of all FFVs in the Fuel Economy Guide and at 

www.fueleconomy.gov. In fact, EPCA requires that the Fuel Economy Guide contain 

information such as: (1) the fuel economy when operating on the alternative fuel, (2) the 

driving range when operating on the alternative fuel, and (3) information about how the 

performance might change when operating on mixtures of the two fuels. 

EPA did not propose changes to these requirements in the 2006 labeling rule and 

did not seek comment on the topic. However, EPA received late public comments from 

several environmental and consumer groups urging EPA to require additional information 

on the use of E85 on FFV labels. Since EPA did not propose and request comments on 

this topic in the 2006 rulemaking, the agency did not finalize any such requirements. 

EPA and NHTSA request public comment on three options for FFV labels. 

One option is to make no changes to the current requirements for FFV labels and 

continue to use fueleconomy.gov and the Fuel Economy Guide to provide information on 

E85 use to consumers.132 Consistent with the current requirements, EPA and NHTSA 

would finalize regulations that would allow manufacturers to display the E85 fuel 

economy values on the label on a voluntary basis. 133 The final regulations would include 

a template for such a label. 

A second option is to require the addition of E85 fuel economy values to FFV 

labels using the units of miles per gallon. Since E85 has a lower energy density (i.e., 

about 25% less energy per gallon) than gasoline, this means that, other things being 

equal, an FFV will have a lower fuel economy on E85 than it will on gasoline. EPA 

recognizes that this does not mean that ethanol is a “less efficient” fuel than gasoline; in 

fact, FFVs are typically slightly more efficient on E85 than on gasoline in terms of miles 

per unit of energy. Accordingly, one approach under this option would be to add text 

such as the following wording on the label that conveys this message: “While the E85 

MPG values are lower than the gasoline MPG values, the use of E85 is typically slightly 

more energy efficient than the use of gasoline.” Under this option, it would also be 

possible to add E85 values for CO2 emissions (an FFV typically emits slightly less CO2

per mile on E85 than on gasoline) and fuel costs (an FFV typically costs somewhat more 

to operate on E85 than gasoline, though this can vary by region). If CO2 values are not 

 

131 40 CFR 600.307-08(b)(14). 132 Consumers do get some information regarding E85 efficiency on a label required by the FTC. Currently 

the FTC label for FFVs displays the driving range on both fuels and some additional information regarding 

the use of alternative fuels. See 16 CFR Part 309. 133 Label examples for FFVs are shown in Section III, but these reflect only a transition of the currently 

used label content (some of which is required by statute) to the proposed label designs. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 80 of 339 

shown, it would also be possible to include a statement such as “Using E85 uses less oil 

and typically produces less CO2 emissions than gasoline.” 

A third option is to utilize the concept of miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent 

(MPGe), which is a way to quantitatively account for the slightly higher miles per unit of 

energy that an FFV achieves on E85 relative to gasoline. Because a gallon of gasoline 

has about 33 percent more energy than a gallon of E85, this means that an E85 MPG is 

multiplied by about 1.33 to convert it to a MPGe value. For most current FFVs, an E85 

MPGe value will be slightly higher than the gasoline MPG value. The E85 MPGe value 

could be in place of, or in addition to, an E85 MPG value. As with the second option 

above, CO2 and fuel costs values for E85 could also be included. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently requires the use of a label that 

displays the cruising range of FFVs and other alternative fuel vehicles. If the agencies 

finalize one of the options to include E85 information, and the FTC determines that that 

information is duplicative with its own information, it opens up the possibility that the 

FTC might review its requirement. 

One remaining issue with FFVs is the methodology for assigning an overall 

combined value for greenhouse gas or fuel economy-based ratings or for any other 

metrics for which a single “merged” value is shown, given that two different fuels can be 

used. There is empirical evidence that approximately 99% of all FFV owners currently 

use gasoline rather than E85 fuel. Given this, the agencies propose, as a default, to base 

any merged values for FFVs on the assumption that the vehicle is operated on gasoline 

100% of the time. However, if a manufacturer can demonstrate that some of its FFVs 

are in fact using E85 fuel in use, then the merged values can be based in part on E85 

performance, prorated based on the percentage of the fleet using E85 use in the field. 

This approach is consistent with that used for vehicle GHG emissions compliance under 

the joint EPA/DOT standards for 2016 and later model year vehicles.134 The agencies 

seek comment on applying the same approach here. 

2. Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

EPA regulations currently provide a label template for vehicles operating on 

compressed natural gas (CNG), and there is one major manufacturer currently selling a 

natural gas vehicle in selected markets. Given that a CNG vehicle is a single-fuel 

vehicle, EPA believes that the label designs developed for conventional or other 

alternative fuel vehicles can be easily adapted to gaseous-fueled vehicles, as has been 

done in the past. In fact, EPCA provided specific instructions regarding how to 

determine the fuel economy for dedicated alternative fuel vehicles such as gaseous-fueled 

vehicles. The statute states that for dedicated automobiles the fuel economy “is the fuel 

economy for those automobiles when operated on alternative fuel, measured under 

section 32905(a) or (c) of this title, multiplied by 0.15.”135 Section 32905(c) applies to 

gaseous-fueled vehicles, and it requires the following: 

 

134 75 FR 25433, May 7, 2010. 135 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 81 of 339 

“For any model of gaseous fuel dedicated automobile manufactured by a 

manufacturer after model year 1992, the Administrator shall measure the fuel 

economy for that model based on the fuel content of the gaseous fuel used to 

operate the automobile. One hundred cubic feet of natural gas is deemed to 

contain .823 gallon equivalent of natural gas. The Secretary of Transportation 

shall determine the appropriate gallon equivalent of other gaseous fuels. A gallon 

equivalent of gaseous fuel is deemed to have a fuel content of .15 gallon of 

fuel.”136

This methodology is currently specified in EPA regulations. Note that 32905(c) applies a 

factor of 0.15, which is essentially a “credit” that increases the fuel economy of gaseousfueled vehicles by a factor of about 6.7 for the purpose of CAFE calculations. But the 

statute recognizes that incorporation of this credit factor in the label values is not 

appropriate, hence the provision in 32908(b)(3) to multiply the 32905(c) result by 0.15, 

thus removing the credit value and resulting in an appropriate real-world label value. 

The current EPA regulations interpret the statute as requiring that the label for 

CNG vehicles display a gasoline-equivalent value, and a label template for CNG is 

provided in the current regulations.137 As can be seen, the current label for CNG vehicles 

is fundamentally the same as for gasoline vehicles, except that the fuel economy values 

are described as “gasoline equivalent” values, and the estimated annual fuel cost is based 

on a combined city/highway gasoline equivalent value and the price per gallon equivalent 

of CNG. The current label also contains text that reads “This vehicle operates on natural 

gas fuel only. Fuel economy is expressed in gasoline equivalent values.” 

We are therefore proposing that labels for CNG vehicles be essentially the same 

in terms of content and appearance as those proposed for conventional vehicles, with only 

a few exceptions. First, where the proposed labels indicate the fuel type, labels for CNG 

vehicles would state “Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle.” Second, the fuel economy 

value(s) would be stated as gasoline-equivalent values. As is the case for the proposed 

labels for electric vehicles, the CNG labels would indicate the conversion factor that is 

used to determine the gasoline equivalent values (0.823 gallons-equivalent per 100 cubic 

feet of CNG, as required by statute).138 Third, the estimated annual fuel cost would be 

calculated using the combined city/highway gasoline equivalent value and the cost per 

gallon equivalent of CNG. The use of gasoline-equivalent gallons is appropriate because 

this is how CNG is dispensed, priced, and sold at current CNG fueling stations. Finally, 

because the cruising range of CNG vehicles is typically limited relative to conventional 

vehicles, we are proposing the addition of cruising range to the CNG vehicle label (in this 

way the label would mimic the electric vehicle label). As is the case with electric 

vehicles, we believe that range is a key piece of information for the consumer who is 

considering a CNG vehicle. Other information on the label, such as the greenhouse gas 

 

136 49 U.S.C. 32905(c). 137 Appendix IV to 40 CFR Part 600, Sample Fuel Economy Labels for 2008 and Later Model Year 

Vehicles. 

138 49 U.S.C. 32905(c). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 82 of 339 

and other pollutant emissions and ratings, would be determined from emission and fuel 

economy test results and the proposed calculation methodologies as is the case for all 

vehicles. 

Section III presents the proposed and alternative label designs, including a 

proposed design for CNG vehicles. We request comment on the proposed approach for 

CNG vehicles, and whether there is additional information specific to CNG or alternative 

fuels that should be on the label. 

3. Dual Fuel Natural Gas & Gasoline Vehicles

Although there is currently a template for dual fuel CNG/gasoline vehicles in the 

existing regulations, there are no manufacturers that are currently manufacturing new 

vehicles that run on CNG and on gasoline.139 Thus we request comment on whether 

there is a need to develop a template for these vehicles based on the new labels. The 

agencies envision that such a label would be based largely on the proposed approach for 

dual fuel gasoline/ethanol vehicles discussed in above, in that the fuel economy and 

related information for both fuels would be displayed on the label. 

Although this proposal addresses most current technologies, it does not need to 

address every possible fuel and technology combination either in existence or that may 

emerge in the future. EPA has the authority to prescribe test procedures and label content 

for vehicles that are not specifically addressed by the regulations, and expects to do so on 

an as-needed basis to address new technologies and fuels.140 In fact, EPA expects to 

exercise this authority with respect to labels for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles that arrive on the market before the 2012 model year. 

4. Diesel Fueled Vehicles

EPA proposes to continue to calculate the fuel economy of diesel vehicles in 

miles traveled on a gallon of diesel fuel. Diesel fuel has a long history of being sold on a 

volumetric basis, and the energy content difference between a gallon of gasoline and a 

gallon of diesel fuel is relatively small. 

III. Proposed Revisions to Fuel Economy Label Appearance 

This section presents and requests comment on three label designs. The agencies 

are co-proposing Label 1 and Label 2 design options, meaning that the agencies currently 

expect to finalize one of the two options. A third label design is being presented as an 

alternative on which the agencies are requesting comment. All of these designs take into 

account and meet the variety of statutory requirements in EPCA and EISA as discussed in 

Section I. It is important to note that although all of the label designs shown in this 

section make use of color to varying degrees, this Federal Register notice is capable of 

 

139 Some aftermarket fuel conversion companies offer such vehicles, but EPA regulations do not currently 

require fuel economy labels for aftermarket fuel conversions. 

140 40 CFR 600.111-08(f) (test procedures) and 40 CFR 600.307-08(k) (label format requirements). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 83 of 339 

only displaying gray-scale versions. Full color versions can be viewed and/or 

downloaded from the docket (search for docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865141 or 

docket number NHTSA-2010-0087 at www.regulations.gov) or from the agencies’ web 

sites where all information related to this action will be posted 

(http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm and http://www.nhtsa.gov/fueleconomy). To the extent possible this section will describe the use of color on the labels, 

but interested parties should view the color versions to understand the full effect of the 

label designs. 

Each design family consists of a set of labels applicable to an array of vehicle 

technology/fuel types. Specifically, we show label examples that apply to conventional 

vehicles (that is, vehicles operating on a single fuel with internal combustion engines or 

hybrid electric drive), flexible-fuel vehicles (for example gasoline-ethanol), compressed 

natural gas vehicles, electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Each label 

family could be readily adapted to accommodate additional vehicle technologies or fuels, 

such as vehicles powered by fuel cells or other upcoming technologies. The agencies 

intend to finalize a label family with a consistent look and feel across vehicle types, in the 

belief that such consistency will most effectively allow for recognition of the label as 

well as comprehension of its content. 

 The agencies found through the focus groups and expert panel that many 

consumers will view the fuel economy label quickly, some using it to confirm the vehicle 

information they have previously researched on a manufacturers’ website or a third party 

website such as Consumer Reports or Edmunds.com. Other consumers, in contrast, will 

view the fuel economy information for the first time when they visit a dealer lot or 

showroom. While a new vehicle purchase represents a significant financial outlay, the 

agencies learned through their research that consumers like it simple, and do not 

necessarily act on details. Therefore, while the agencies want and need to add certain 

pieces of information to meet statutory requirements and to help consumers make 

informed decisions about the fuel consumption and environmental impacts of their 

vehicle choices we must balance these objectives with the need to keep the new labels 

consumer friendly. To accomplish this, the agencies were guided by a set of core 

principles in designing these labels. The labels should: 

 Create an immediate first impression for consumers 

 Be easy to read and understand quickly 

 Clearly identify vehicle technology (conventional, EV, EREV, PHEV) 

 Utilize color 

 Chunk information to allow people to deal with “more information” 

 Be consistent in content and design across technologies 

 Allow for comparison across technologies 

 Make it easy to identify the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly 

vehicles 

 

141 See Memorandum from Roberts W. French, Jr. to EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865, “Color 

versions of labels proposed by EPA and DOT in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking “Revisions and Additions 

to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label,” August 26, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 84 of 339 

The agencies are requesting comment on both the design and content of each 

label. Design issues are self-evident on the labels as presented, and we seek comment on 

the design aspects of each label family, including format, color, font, and graphical 

elements. Content issues have been extensively discussed throughout the preamble; for 

illustrative purposes, presentation of content varies somewhat from one label family to 

another and we seek comment on the various approaches. Specifically, we seek comment 

on the layout, prominence, and grouping of label elements in terms of clarity, apparent 

relative importance, responsiveness to consumer information needs, and effectiveness at 

meeting public policy goals. These sample labels do not present every possible 

configuration of each label; for example, gas guzzler information is not depicted, as it is 

utilized on only a small subset of labels. The final rule will provide specific templates for 

these unique cases. Detailed specifications for presenting all required label information 

will be included in the regulations. 

Although we will finalize labels with a uniform look and feel, commenters should 

not view the content of the labels below as being necessarily tied to one label design. For 

example, just because Labels 1 and 3 for PHEV are the only labels that display the allelectric range for a PHEV does not mean that the information could not be incorporated 

into Label 2 or into other label designs. We are interested in comments that relate both to 

content that should be on the label, how it should be communicated, and what overall 

label presentation is most effective and consumer friendly. 

Finally, please note that although the agencies have made every effort to make 

these labels as realistic as possible and to ensure that the values on each label are 

internally consistent, the labels presented here should be considered examples that are not 

intended to represent real automobiles. 

A. Proposed Label Designs 

The agencies are proposing two label designs, presenting both designs as equal 

“co-proposals” but expecting to finalize only one design based on public comments and 

other information gathered after the proposal. Although the two designs shown below 

have fundamentally different visual appearances and will no doubt elicit very different 

reactions from some viewers, they essentially present exactly the same basic information. 

For conventional vehicles, for example, each design displays the following: 

• City MPG 

• Highway MPG 

• Combined gallons/100 miles 

• CO2 grams per mile (combined city/highway) 

• Estimated annual fuel cost 

• Range of fuel economy within the class 

• The fuel the vehicle uses 

• Three “slider bars” showing the performance of the labeled vehicle relative to 

other vehicles for MPG, CO2, and other air pollutants 

• Annual fuel cost assumptions 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 85 of 339 

• A symbol that can be read by a “‘Smartphone”’ for additional consumer 

interactions (i.e., a “QR” Code) 

• A Fuel Economy Guide statement 

• EPA, DOE, and DOT logos 

1. Label 1

 Label 1 is fundamentally different from Label 2 and 3 designs presented in this 

section in three different ways: 

 First, the orientation is a portrait orientation, rather than the landscape style of 

the current label. 

 Second, a rating reflecting the energy efficiency and environmental impacts of 

the vehicle is given overall prominence. Instead of providing a series of 

numbers on the label with varying or equal prominence, which may make it 

difficult for consumers to evaluate at a glance, this label presents the energy 

and environment rating as a letter grade (a system familiar to all consumers) 

with major prominence at the top of the label. The letter grade is simply 

another familiar scale on which to present a linear rating, comparable to the 

star system or a 1-10 rating. This grade would be based on CO2 emissions and 

fuel economy consumption as described in Section II. To further help 

consumers identify the grade of a vehicle on the dealer sales lot, the agencies 

are proposing that different colors be used to differentiate between grade 

“families.” In other words, the dominant color on all the “A” grade labels 

would be one color, the “B” grade labels would use a different color, and so 

on. For example, the circle which surrounds the letter grade would be a 

different color depending on the grade. The color versions of the labels 

demonstrate this, using green for A grades, yellow for B grades, orange for C 

grades, and a dark orange for D grades. 

 Third, this label provides new fuel cost savings information not seen on any 

other label designs. Secondary only in prominence to the letter grade, and 

immediately below the letter grade, Label 1 would display the 5-year fuel cost 

of the vehicle in comparison to the average vehicle. For vehicles with fuel 

economy ratings above the median vehicle, the label would display how much 

the consumer would save, and for vehicles with ratings below average the 

label would display how much more the consumer would be spending. 

All the remaining information is displayed in the bottom portion of the label and 

would be available to consumers who want to know the more detailed information or who 

take a more analytical approach to evaluating the vehicle. The agencies believe that this 

approach uses a rating system that is easily understood by consumers and that would 

dramatically simplify the process of evaluating the overall energy efficiency and 

environmental impacts of the vehicles they are considering. The de-emphasis of MPG on 

this label – indeed, one purpose of directing consumers to the overall rating – is intended 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 86 of 339 

to enable consumers to make the best fuel consumption and environmental choices, 

choices made easier by the addition of the comparative cost information. Additionally, a 

consumer that uses the letter grade and cost information on this label may be able to 

avoid the effect of the “MPG illusion” described in Section II. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 87 of 339 

Figure III-1. Label 1 for gas/diesel vehicle, B grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 88 of 339 

Figure III-2. Label 1 for electric vehicle, A+ grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 89 of 339 

Figure III-3. Label 1 for PHEV, A grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 90 of 339 

Figure III-4. Label 1 for gas/diesel vehicle, C grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 91 of 339 

Figure III-5. Label 1 for gas/diesel vehicle, D grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 92 of 339 

Figure III-6. Label 1 for PHEV, Option 2. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 93 of 339 

Figure III-7. Label 1 for CNG vehicle, A- grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 94 of 339 

Figure III-8. Label 1 for FFV, B grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 95 of 339 

 Option 2 for the PHEV version is offered as an alternative representation of plugin hybrid electric vehicles. This option was developed to be consistent with other dualfuel vehicle labeling approaches. It also provides an example of how more information 

about the different modes of operation for PHEVs could be displayed on Label 1. The 

agencies seek comment on whether this alternate approach to PHEV labeling for Label 1 

provides better information for consumers or whether the first option is more useful. 

2. Label 2

 Label 2, shown below takes a more traditional approach, similar to the current 

fuel economy label and highlights the key metrics of MPG and annual fuel cost. The 

agencies are seeking comment about whether, if this label were finalized, the prominence 

of gallons per hundred miles should be gradually increased on the label through one or 

more rulemakings to facilitate consumer familiarity with and usage of a consumption 

metric. As explained in Section II, these labels show the combined city/highway MPG 

with the highest prominence. The additional ratings are essentially identical to those of 

Label 1, except with the additional space for the MPG rating “slider bar.” Because of this 

extra space for the slider bars, Label 2 can also display the range of fuel economy of the 

applicable vehicle class (Label 1 provides this information in text form) in the context of 

the range of fuel economy for the whole fleet. Label 2 uses the slider bar approach like 

Label 1 for all of the specific ratings, and, like Label 1, has separate ratings for MPG, 

greenhouse gases, and other air pollutants. The electric vehicle label in this series does 

have an additional piece of information relative to Label 1 -- the battery charging time. 

And unlike Label 1 and Label 3, the PHEV label in this series provides separate annual 

cost estimates for both the electric and gas modes of operation, which may be more 

useful to consumers who want to understand the costs specifically associated with 

operating the vehicle solely on mode either when operating on electricity or in gas-only 

operating mode. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 96 of 339 

Figure III-9. Label 2 gas/diesel vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 97 of 339 

Figure III-10. Label 2 for electric vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 98 of 339 

Figure III-12. Label 2 for PHEV (predominantly blended type). 

Figure III-11. Label 2 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 99 of 339 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 100 of 339 

Figure III-13. Label 2 for CNG vehicle. 

 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 101 of 339 

Figure III-14. Label 2 for FFV. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 102 of 339 

B. Alternative Label Design (Label 3) 

The agencies also seek comment on a third label design that includes the same 

information as the other labels, but displays alternative ways of communicating the 

information. For example, this label (Label 3) combines the greenhouse gas and fuel 

economy ratings into one slider bar using a 1-10 rating scale (rather than the absolute 

values used in the other label designs), and instead of a relative “slider bar” scale for the 

other air pollutant rating, Label 3 uses a star rating system. Other than the difference in 

the rating systems, the Label 3 electric vehicle label provides essentially the same 

information as Label 2. For PHEVs, Label 3 provides only one annual fuel cost number 

(like Label 1) that merges the electric and gasoline modes. This label also displays for 

PHEVs an all-electric range, if the vehicle is capable of such operation. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 103 of 339 

Figure III-15. Label 3 for gas/diesel vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 104 of 339 

Figure III-16. Label 3 for electric vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 105 of 339 

Figure III-17. Label 3 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 106 of 339 

Figure III-18. Label 3 for PHEV, predominantly blended type. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 107 of 339 

IV. Agency Research On Fuel Economy Labeling 

As discussed above, the fuel economy label must contain certain pieces of 

information by statute, and may additionally contain other pieces of information 

considered helpful to consumers. Given that all of the label information must be 

presented so as to maximize usefulness and minimize confusion for the consumer, EPA 

and NHTSA embarked upon a comprehensive research program beginning in the fall of 

2009. Developing an effective label – one that conveys the required and desired 

information to consumers so that they can understand and use it to make decisions-- 

involves some inherent subjectivity, since what is understandable and useful for one 

consumer may be confusing or unhelpful to another. To better ground our proposed label 

designs in actual human responses, the agencies set out to better understand the following 

general issues: whether, how, and to what extent consumers use the current fuel economy 

label in the vehicle purchase process; the barriers to consumer understanding of the fuel 

efficiency of vehicles relative to one another (including both conventional vehicles and 

advanced technology vehicles); and how a newly redesigned label could most effectively 

convey information to consumers on fuel economy, fuel consumption, fuel cost, 

greenhouse gas, and other emissions. 

When EPA last redesigned the fuel economy label in 2006, consumer research 

was valuable in helping to inform the development of that label.142 Since today’s 

proposal includes adding important new elements to the existing label as well as creating 

new labels for advanced technology vehicles, EPA and NHTSA embarked on a more 

comprehensive consumer research program than that undertaken in 2006 and have used 

this research to help develop the labels proposed in this NPRM. 

A. Methods of Research 

To gather information about the topics described below, the agencies designed a 

research plan including a review of literature on the vehicle buying process, three sets of 

focus groups in four different cities, a day-long facilitated consultation with experts in the 

field of shifting consumer behavior, and an internet survey of responses to proposed label 

designs (which will occur during the comment period following this NPRM). A more 

thorough discussion of each research method is provided below. 

1. Literature Review

EPA and NHTSA conducted a review of the existing literature to understand the 

vehicle buying process. Specifically, the literature review addressed the sources of 

information that consumers use to research vehicles, their decision-making process, and 

the factors that influence which vehicles consumers choose to buy. These include 

vehicle-specific factors such as price, fuel economy, and safety, as well as the role that 

demographics and psychographics play in purchasing decisions. Literature examining 

consumer attitudes toward buying more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly (i.e., 

 

142 The current label was redesigned and implemented for model year (MY) 2008 vehicles. See 71 FR 

77871-77969 (December 27 2006). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 108 of 339 

“green”) vehicles was also reviewed. Understanding when and how consumers consider 

fuel economy and the environmental impact in their vehicle purchase decisions helped 

the agencies determine the most effective ways to provide useful information to 

consumers on the vehicle label. 

Additionally, the literature review report included an overview of existing 

educational campaigns aimed at helping consumers use information on the fuel efficiency 

and the environmental effects of their transportation choices. Review of these campaigns 

may help inform the agencies’ development of educational tools and messages beyond 

the label to provide consumers with useful information on fuel efficient and 

environmentally friendly vehicles. 

A broad range of sources were reviewed for this report, including journals in 

marketing, economics, and transportation research; business magazines; government 

documents; conference proceedings; and a variety of websites. Some of the key findings 

from the literature review are described in Section IV.B. A more detailed report is 

available in the docket.143 

2. Focus Groups

 The agencies felt it was critical to consider understandability and consumer 

reaction to a variety of label concepts given that the purpose of the fuel economy label is 

to inform consumers of the vehicle’s fuel economy and, with the amendments enacted by 

EISA, greenhouse gases and other emissions. EPA and NHTSA additionally saw a need 

to conduct research beyond that of the previous rulemaking due to the advancements in 

vehicle technology underway, the increased market share of vehicles that use fuels other 

than gasoline, and the introduction of environmental information to the label. The 

agencies determined that they would gather in-depth, qualitative feedback about fuel 

economy labeling, potential new label information, and ways of displaying the 

information through focus groups. The focus group format allowed for in-depth probing 

around a variety of topics, including comprehension of potential elements on the fuel 

economy label and how consumers may use that information in making purchase 

decisions. The focus groups were not intended to provide quantitative results, but were 

instead designed to help EPA and NHTSA discern the subtleties of the large number of 

decisions that are necessary when creating a label that should convey numerous and 

sometimes complicated information. 

The focus group process included a recruitment screener, on-line pre-focus group 

survey, and at least two gender-differentiated focus groups in four different cities for each 

of the three separate phases. The focus group methodology and results, including the 

recruitment screener and pre-focus group on-line surveys, are discussed in greater detail 

in the focus group Technical Memoranda available in the public docket for this 

rulemaking.144

 

143 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 

2010. 

144 EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 109 of 339 

The agencies concluded that conducting three phases of focus groups, each with a 

different concentration, was necessary to gather adequate information to explore the 

complex and numerous issues raised by this rulemaking. Phase 1 gathered qualitative 

information on consumer understanding and use of the current fuel economy label, 

consumer reaction to potential new information and metrics on the label for conventional 

vehicles, and also initial identification of effective displays for this information. Phase 2 

asked consumers to identify what information they were interested in seeing on the label 

for advanced technology vehicles and explored the understandability and sufficiency of 

various information and metrics for PHEVs and EVs. Phase 3 explored the 

understandability and usefulness of new information integrated into whole label designs 

for both conventional and advanced technology vehicles. Thus, overall, focus groups 

were used to obtain a qualitative understanding of consumers’ comprehension and 

reactions to fuel economy label information. 

 The agencies assumed that individuals who had recently purchased vehicles 

would have the best insight into how the current fuel economy label is used and would 

therefore also be best suited to provide input about any changes that might be made to the 

label. To that end, participants were selected based on having purchased a vehicle within 

the past year, but not during the “cash for clunkers” purchase window.145 A “participant 

screener” was used to ensure a reasonable cross-section of purchasers was represented in 

each group. Some of the demographic variations purposefully considered included the 

type of new vehicle purchased, price range of the new vehicle, average daily driving 

distance, and whether the individual had seriously considered or actually purchased an 

advanced technology vehicle such as a gasoline hybrid. 

 Each focus group participant was also asked to complete a short on-line survey 

before attending the session. This survey served three purposes: 1) to collect 

demographic data about the participants and information about their specific vehicle 

purchase process; 2) to provide participants with some background information about 

advanced technology vehicles so that the participants would have some exposure to new 

technologies prior to the focus group meeting; and 3) to gather information about how the 

participants had used the current fuel economy label in their purchase decisions, if at all. 

This survey data was not intended to be examined as a nationally representative sample 

and was only used as supplementary information when describing the focus group results. 

 The agencies anticipate that there will be additional focus groups prior to rule 

finalization in each of the four cities where focus groups were held pre-proposal. These 

focus groups will examine revised labels based on feedback the agencies receive during 

the comment period and will provide additional input on whole label designs. The 

agencies will place information obtained from these focus groups in the docket as it 

 

145 “Cash for Clunkers” (Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009, Pub. L. 11132) was a 

NHTSA program that provided a tax incentive to trade-in low fuel efficient vehicles for new, higher fuel 

efficient vehicles. The purchase period in which this program operated was excluded to avoid any bias of 

participants, since the program was explicitly focused on fuel economy. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 110 of 339 

becomes available and encourages all interested parties to check the docket for updated 

information. 

3. Internet Survey

While the focus groups were used to develop new label designs, the internet 

survey is meant to examine how understandable the new label designs are, and whether 

the proposed new label and alternative labels will improve consumers’ knowledge about 

more efficient vehicles. The planned survey is scheduled to begin concurrent with the 

signing of this proposal and will test these questions for both conventional and advanced 

technology vehicles. A notice of the survey, published in the Federal Register on May 

12, 2010, requested comment on the survey methodology.146 No substantive comments 

were received. 

This survey will use two samples: self-selected U.S. new vehicle purchasers and 

people who expressed an intention to purchase a new vehicle by requesting a price quote 

from a dealer.147 Each of these samples is divided into three separate groups. One 

version of the survey was developed for each group, identical in every way except that 

each of the groups will see only one of the label designs. 

The survey tests respondents’ understanding of the labels by showing each 

respondent a series of label pairs. In each pair, all vehicle characteristics are held 

constant except the information on the vehicle label. For instance, the fuel economy of 

the vehicles may differ, or one may have a conventional vehicle and one an electric 

vehicle. Respondents are then asked to identify which vehicle is better to use for trips of 

specified distances.148 The key metric of interest is whether the label designs produce 

statistically significantly different results. If one label produces more correct responses 

than other labels, then it can be considered more understandable; if the labels do not 

produce statistically different results, then the labels can be considered equivalently 

understandable. 

To test the potential influence of the labels on vehicle purchases, respondents see 

pairs of labels for vehicles with all vehicle attributes constant except those varied on the 

label, such as the technologies of the vehicles, their efficiencies, and their energy costs. 

Instead of using the label to identify the better vehicle for a scenario, the respondents are 

asked which of these vehicles they would prefer to buy, based on their individual driving 

 

146 U.S. EPA, “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Internet 

Survey Research for Improving Fuel Economy Label Design and Content; EPA ICR No. 2390.01, OMB 

Control No. 2060-NEW,” 75 Fed. Reg. 26751 (May 12, 2010). 147 Sources of respondents were databases owned by Autobytel, http://www.autobytel.com (for those 

intending to buy new vehicles), and Focus USA (for those who purchased a vehicle in the last year), 

http://www.focus-usa-1.com. 

148 Respondents were asked which was better, rather than which was more fuel-efficient or less costly, so as 

to leave the respondents with the choice of what information on the label to use for the comparison. A later 

question asked which information they used in their response. While this somewhat ambiguous approach 

may reduce the absolute number of correct answers to the questions, the goal is testing the relative effects 

of the labels, not the absolute effects. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 111 of 339 

patterns. Comparisons involve both conventional and advanced technology vehicles. 

Because the survey asks respondents about their typical daily driving distances, it is 

possible to see whether respondents chose the vehicle better suited for their habits. The 

key variable is whether the responses differ for different label designs. 

The internet survey data collection is planned to occur in early to mid-August 

2010. The results of the survey will be made public as soon as they are available. The 

results will be made available in the public docket for this rulemaking at regulations.gov. 

If the results are not placed in the docket 30 days before the end of the comment period, 

the agencies will accept comments on these results up to 30 days from when they were 

placed in the docket. 

4. Expert Panel

In order to gather additional feedback on the label designs developed from the 

focus groups and to identify opportunities and strategies to provide more and better 

information to consumers so that they can more easily assess the costs, emissions, and 

energy efficiency of different vehicles, EPA and NHTSA convened an expert panel. 

“Experts” were selected based on their past experience in changing social norms either by 

successfully launching new products or leading national education campaigns that have 

had a broad and significant impact. The method for selecting the panel began by first 

generating a list of products and social changes that met the criteria of impacting a 

significant percentage of the population quickly, while also demonstrating staying power. 

Individuals who had roles critical to the success of these efforts were then identified and 

recruited. Nine “experts” participated on the panel, with experiences that included 

launching very successful public health campaigns, internet sites, new technologies, and 

cable networks. The meeting was held from 9 A.M. to 3 P.M. in Washington D.C. on 

June 9, 2010. 

The topics covered include: background information, review and feedback on the 

EPA/NHTSA research process, messaging techniques, outreach strategies, and feedback 

on possible label designs. The Expert Panel is discussed in greater detail in the Expert 

Panel Report in the public docket for this rulemaking.149

B. Key Research Questions and Findings 

The agencies identified the following key research questions, given the 

overarching issues provided above: 

• How should labels portray information about fuel consumption and fuel economy, 

fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions for consumers in a way that is most 

understandable and useful to them? 

 

149 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, 

August 2010.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 112 of 339 

• How should labels for advanced technology vehicles portray information about 

fuel economy, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions for consumers in a 

way that is most understandable and useful to them? 

• How should the new labels be designed to meet the statutory requirements while 

best raising consumers’ understanding of fuel efficiency, fuel cost and 

environmental impact? 

• How can consumers compare vehicles when they are shopping? 

• What purchase process do consumers currently use to make new vehicle 

purchasing decisions? Given this process, when are the most effective 

opportunities to communicate fuel economy and environmental information? 

1. Effective Metrics and Rating Systems for Existing and New Label 

Information

 

How should labels portray information about fuel consumption and fuel economy, 

fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions for consumers in a way that is most 

understandable and useful to them? 

 As described in Section I, EPCA and EISA require the fuel economy label to 

provide fuel economy, cost, and environmental information, as well as provide a means 

to compare vehicles based on fuel economy, greenhouse gases, and other emissions. The 

agency’s research program explored how this information might be displayed on the label 

in a useful and accessible format for consumers. 

a. Fuel Consumption and Fuel Economy 

 EPCA requires the label to display the “fuel economy of the automobile.” 

However, fuel economy, commonly thought of as “MPG” (the number of miles that can 

be traveled consuming one gallon of fuel) is often misunderstood by consumers. As 

discussed more extensively in Section II, because MPG is not linear, when people 

compare vehicles with different MPG values they are apt to incorrectly estimate the fuel 

savings of one vehicle over another. For example, switching from a 15 MPG vehicle to a 

20 MPG vehicle will save more fuel than switching from a 30 MPG vehicle to a 35 MPG 

vehicle. Thus, comparing vehicles based on MPG is not as helpful to consumers in 

making quick and accurate comparisons as consumers may believe it to be. Fuel 

consumption (the number of gallons of fuel consumed to travel a given distance), on the 

other hand, does yield the type of linear comparison that consumers should find useful. 

Therefore, the agencies explored ways to convey fuel consumption on the label. 

 Focus groups were instrumental in helping the agencies learn about 

communicating fuel consumption. Specifically, Phase 1 focus groups set out to gauge 

how receptive consumers were to a fuel consumption value and whether there were 

particular presentations of that value which were more understandable. To do this the 

‘Fuel Economy (MPG) Illusion’ was introduced in the pre-focus group on-line survey, 

followed by specific probing in each group around what “fuel consumption” means. 

Phase 1 focus groups generally responded that it was the distance one can travel on a 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 113 of 339 

gallon of gas (which is fuel economy, rather than fuel consumption). Following this 

discussion the participants were presented with four different designs, each conveying 

fuel consumption and fuel economy information. The prominent value displayed within 

each design was fuel consumption, given in gallons per 100 miles while the less 

prominent value was fuel economy, given in miles per gallon. Even when participants 

demonstrated that they properly understood fuel consumption, most still indicated that 

they preferred miles per gallon over gallons per 100 miles. Participants indicated this to 

be the case even after the moderator explained the ‘MPG Illusion.’ A few participants 

did indicate that viewing gallons per 100 miles, instead of miles per gallon, might get 

them to switch to more efficient vehicle types. Some participants also said that they 

believed they would use the gallons per 100 mile fuel consumption information on the 

label to learn about the vehicle’s city and highway gas consumption and to compare 

between different vehicles in making their purchase decision. However, most 

participants were not enthusiastic about using the fuel consumption information. 

Almost all focus group participants showed a strong attachment to MPG. They 

like and use the city and highway MPG and are not familiar with gallons per 100 miles. 

If a new fuel consumption metric, such as gallons per 100 miles, were added to the label 

participants would still want the familiar MPG metric to be prominent on the label. 

Recognizing that consumers believe they derive significant value from MPG, but that 

consumption information may be more accurate and ultimately valuable to consumers, 

another approach to displaying fuel consumption was also devised and presented to focus 

groups: an “annual gallons used” value. The basis for deriving this new metric was that 

1) it makes the magnitude of comparing vehicles based on consumption more apparent, 

and 2) it provides a clear link between the annual cost value and fuel consumption value. 

An annual gallons metric was also found to be one of the more effective ways to 

demonstrate the fuel economy illusion. While the agencies considered displaying the 

annual gallons of fuel information on the label we ultimately determined that the gallons 

per 100 mile metric should be introduced on the label as the new consumption metric, 

and that the introduction of the five year cost or savings information would also help 

consumers in overcoming the effects of the MPG illusion while also providing important 

additional information. 

Phase 1 focus group participants also evaluated four different graphical display 

options for fuel consumption and were asked which was the most understandable design. 

Participants responded by identifying the design they felt was simple, informative and in 

a familiar format. However, participants did not agree on which design accomplished 

this. 

 

The agencies further explored fuel economy and fuel consumption designs in 

Phase 3 where focus group participants were asked to evaluate whole label designs 

encompassing both fuel economy and fuel consumption values. In each of the three 

labels presented, the MPG value was a dominant metric.150 For each design participants 

were asked to determine between two labels, which represented the more fuel efficient 

 

150 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010. (Contains visual depictions of each of the Phase III label series.) 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 114 of 339 

vehicle. Participants were also asked to identify what piece of information on the label 

they used to make this determination. Fuel consumption was rarely identified as being 

used by participants. Instead, participants used MPG and cost values most often.151

In Phase 3, the agencies explored simplification of the labels by displaying on two 

of the three label designs only the combined (55% city and 45% highway) fuel economy 

value in lieu of listing the city and highway values separately. (See Section IV.B.4 for a 

discussion of whole label designs and why simplification is perceived as an overarching 

goal.) When participants were probed about why they did or did not like certain label 

designs, the presence of city and highway values was often cited as a positive for a label 

design, and the absence of the city and highway values was cited as a negative for a label 

design. In addition, when asked how to improve the label designs, several focus group 

participants asked for the city and highway values to be added to the label designs that 

did not include them. 

The agencies gathered additional input on the most effective approaches for 

portraying fuel economy and fuel consumption information during the expert panel 

meeting. After viewing three label designs, expert panel participants provided comments 

on how the label could be made more understandable and useful for consumers. The 

expert panel emphasized that in order to be effective, the fuel economy label should be 

simple and able to be understood by consumers within a short amount of viewing time. 

To implement this goal, the expert panel suggested that the agencies develop a single, 

overall metric for vehicles that is easy for consumers to understand, such as a letter grade 

(A±, B±, etc.).152

The expert panel also suggested that the agencies consider redesigning the label 

such that the single metric is prominently featured on the top half, and any additional 

vehicle information and more specific metrics be included on the label in smaller font and 

in a less prominent location. The expert panel stated that this approach would provide 

interested consumers with more detailed information without distracting from the 

simpler, overall metric that all consumers could easily understand. The rationale for this 

label design is that it can provide useful comparative information to the consumer who 

may only glance at it, while also providing the necessary details to those who want more 

in-depth information. Additionally, the expert panel suggested prominently featuring a 

website URL and a QR Code® for smartphones to provide consumers with access to more 

detailed vehicle information elsewhere.153 For example, the website and smartphone 

application might contain tools for consumers to calculate the fuel economy they can 

expect based on their own driving habits or allow consumers to quickly compare fuel 

economy and consumption for different vehicle models. 

b. Fuel Cost 

 

151 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010, p.12. 

152 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, 

August 2010, p. 15-17. 

153 Ibid. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 115 of 339 

EPCA requires the fuel economy label display the “annual fuel cost of operating 

the automobile.” Recognizing that some consumers have previously appeared to distrust 

or dismiss annual costs as not representative of their own experience, EPA and NHTSA 

explored whether there were other cost units (such as cost per month, per mile, per week, 

etc.) that could be additionally provided that would be more meaningful to consumers. 

Throughout the focus groups in Phase 1 and 2, participants indicated that they 

tended to dismiss the annual cost information on the current label because gas prices 

fluctuate and vary with location, and they do not drive 15,000 miles per year.154 

Nevertheless, Phase 1 focus group participants identified the estimated annual fuel cost as 

the second most used piece of information on the label. In addition, in Phase 2 focus 

groups, where participants were asked to create labels from scratch, most groups placed a 

cost value on the label. When cost values are used, focus group members indicated they 

used it as a comparative tool to evaluate the fuel efficiency of different vehicles. 

When asked what they thought about cost, focus group participants indicated 

they thought about the cost to fill a gas tank, the fuel cost over a period of time (daily, 

weekly, monthly, yearly, etc.), and the fuel cost over a given distance (cost per mile, 100 

miles, 1000 miles, etc.). When Phase 1 focus group participants were presented with a 

variety of cost units, the two most popular choices among cost units were annual cost and 

cost per month. However, in Phase 3, when presented with labels that displayed both a 

monthly cost and an annual cost, participants suggested that the monthly cost value could 

be dropped. 

Participants in the expert panel meeting suggested that the agencies provide 

information on the savings consumers could achieve by purchasing a more fuel efficient 

vehicle. One expert panel participant noted that the current label designs demonstrate 

costs, but that it would be better to demonstrate savings, which tends to be a very strong 

motivator.155 One approach to communicating this information on the label would be to 

display the savings a consumer might expect over five years by purchasing and driving a 

vehicle with a higher overall letter grade. 

 

c. Environmental Metrics 

Environmental information on greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other emissions has 

not been previously displayed on the fuel economy label, so the agencies were interested 

in learning how a label might best convey to consumers information about the emissions 

impact of a new vehicle. The available literature on the impact of “eco-labeling” vehicles 

is mixed.156 Some of the research indicates that consumers may welcome an eco-label on 

 

154 15,000 miles per year is the current annual mileage assumption used on all fuel economy labels to 

estimate the annual fuel cost of operating a vehicle. 

155 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, 

August 2010,p. 17. 

156 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 

2010, p. 24. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 116 of 339 

their vehicle, although they say that it is unlikely to impact their purchase decision. 

Through its consumer research, the agencies investigated what combination of metrics 

and ratings might be displayed on the fuel economy label to provide this information in 

an effective and consumer-friendly way, including a stand-alone CO2 performance 

metric, relative versus absolute rating systems, a comparison system, and an 

environmental certification mark. 

 For the most part, Phase 1 focus group participants indicated that they did not 

research environmental information (beyond fuel economy) as part of the vehicle 

purchase process. While some participants indicated that they would use environmental 

information to compare different vehicles if it was placed on the fuel economy label the 

majority of focus group participants were indifferent to the inclusion of environmental 

impact information on the label and indicated they were not likely to visit a website for 

environmental information. However, when presented with whole label designs in Phase 

3 many respondents indicated that the environmental metric should be on the label, so 

that it is available for those who were interested. 

In Phase 1, participants were presented with four different environmental metric 

options and approaches to displaying environmental information, and were asked to rate 

the most understandable and least understandable. Participants stated that they 

understood the environmental information in general, but did not understand what “grams 

of CO2” meant. The display featuring a rating for other emissions in stars and grams of 

CO2 numerically was most frequently chosen by Phase 1 participants to be the most 

understandable. Participants generally favored presentations that showed information in 

a simple format, though there was no consensus on which format achieved this. In 

general Phase 1 and 2 focus group findings indicate that we must keep environmental 

information simple if we want consumers to pay any attention to this information on a 

label. An overall environmental rating was most favorably received with the general 

reaction being that EPA was trusted to decide how to combine environmental impacts 

into a single rating. 

 Phase 1 focus groups were also asked if they recognized and knew what the 

“SmartWay” logo meant. None of the participants recognized the logo. However, when 

probed, most ascertained that it was an EPA designation of some sort. While some 

participants indicated the logo may confer credibility to an environmentally friendly 

vehicle, none indicated they would be less likely to purchase a vehicle without the logo. 

 In Phase 3 focus groups the agencies sought to examine further how 

environmental information might be displayed most effectively. Several permutations of 

graphical rating systems were shown to participants. These included designs in which 

“greenhouse gases” and “other air pollutants” were displayed as one combined 

environmental rating or separately. Rating scales were examined that were based on 

relative values, such as a “5 leaf” rating system as well as a linear scale that had the 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 117 of 339 

vehicle’s absolute CO2 value identified on a scale that had end-points identifying the 

approximate highest and lowest emitting vehicles available.157 

 

 The expert panel, when shown the labels designed by the agencies based on focus 

group input, stated that they neither understood the environmental information presented 

nor found it compelling. As described in Section IV.B.4, the expert panel recommended 

developing an overall rating for vehicles, which could combine fuel economy and 

environmental impacts. The expert panel noted that additional metrics (e.g., CO2

performance) could be included in a less prominent position on the label for consumers 

interested in more detailed environmental information. Expert panel participants also 

suggested that environmental performance information could be made available on a 

website and accessed through the smartphone interactive (QR Code®) featured on the 

label.158 

2. Effective Metrics and Ratings Systems for Advanced Technology 

Vehicles

 How should labels for advanced technology vehicles portray information about 

fuel economy, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions for consumers in a way that 

is most understandable and useful to them? 

 In addition to the issues discussed above for conveying information generally on 

labels, advanced technology vehicles that operate on fuels which differ from conventional 

gasoline and diesel fuel require new strategies to communicate and display fuel economy 

information effectively.159 Through the research program, we explored potential 

approaches to communicating useful fuel economy, cost, and environmental information 

about electric vehicles and several variations of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. As 

discussed further below, the research probed consumers to identify what specific 

information they would need if they were to seriously consider purchasing an advanced 

technology vehicle and what information would be most helpful on an advanced 

technology fuel economy label.160 

 Phase 2 focus groups were devoted to exploring what label information 

consumers believed was most important to display for advanced technology vehicles 

given the limited space provided on the fuel economy label. The focus group discussions 

were broken into segments based on three different vehicle technologies: EVs, extended 

range PHEVS, and blended PHEVs. Focus group discussions thus separated the different 

technologies in order to ascertain more accurately what information would be most useful 

to consumers to understand these new technologies. Phase 2 focus groups were tasked 

 

157 See Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, 

August 2010,. p. 39-40 for a detailed description of the metrics examined. 

158 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, 

August 2010, p. 15-17.

159 See Section III.B. and III.C. for a discussion of the challenges that advanced technology and other nontraditional vehicles present for consumers when making vehicle purchase decisions. 

160 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, 

August 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 118 of 339 

with “building” three different labels, each for different advanced technology vehicles 

and were given a large number of metrics from which to choose the building blocks. 

Almost all of the labels built by each focus group included the following elements: (1) 

the range that the vehicle could travel while depleting a full battery, the charge depleting 

operation; (2) the length of time it takes to charge the battery; (3) the cost of charging the 

battery, and if operating in two separate fuel modes, the cost associated with each mode 

of operation; and (5) an environmental metric.161 When asked to identify the two most 

important pieces of information on the label, participants said, regardless of the city, 

gender, or technology discussed, that information on the range an advanced technology 

vehicle can travel on a fully changed battery and the length of time is takes to charge the 

battery were the most important information they needed to have in order to seriously 

consider purchasing these type of vehicle. 

 The expert panel’s label recommendations did not differentiate between 

conventional and advanced technology vehicles. The recommendations they made for 

the conventional vehicle label would apply to the advanced technology vehicle label as 

well. 

 a. Range 

Focus group participants stated that for any vehicle that operates, even just part of 

the time, on electricity, it is important for them to know the distance the vehicle can 

travel on a fully charged battery. Participants saw this as vital to their understanding of 

the vehicle’s fuel economy. While Phase 2 focus groups expressed interest in seeing the 

range displayed for both city and highway values, when Phase 3 participants were 

presented with full labels, no one asked for the range to be broken down by city and 

highway values. 

 b. Fuel Cost 

 

 Across all advanced technologies, participants were interested in battery charging 

costs. There was a fairly even split between cost per mile, annual cost and monthly cost 

values, regardless of technology. For any vehicle with a gasoline-only mode of 

operation, participants expressed a desire to see the cost expressed annually. The groups 

also indicated that labels for any vehicle that operated in a combined gas and electric 

mode should provide cost information on an annual basis. In Phase 3, when presented 

with annual fuel cost and monthly fuel cost options, many participants used the annual 

fuel cost when comparing across advanced technology vehicles. Some indicated that the 

monthly cost was useful for these advanced technology vehicles. In particular, people 

equated the electricity consumption to their monthly home electricity statements. 

 c. Fuel Consumption and Fuel Economy 

 

161 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, 

August 2010. Appendix K. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 119 of 339 

For any advanced technology vehicle that operates in a gas-only mode, the Phase 

2 focus groups indicated a strong desire to see fuel consumption expressed in miles per 

gallon. In any vehicle that had an electric-only mode of operation, the focus groups 

favored seeing the electric consumption information expressed in an MPG equivalent of 

“MPGs”. (See Section II.B for a detailed discussion of MPGe). The second most 

understandable metric of electric-only operation was kilowatt-hour per 100 miles, but 

many participants felt strongly that kilowatt hours are very unfamiliar and should not be 

chosen as a metric. For the PHEVs with a blended mode (gas and electric), focus groups 

were interested in seeing an MPGe that combined the MPGe of electric operation and the 

MPG of gas operation. In any vehicle that could operate in more than one mode of 

operation, such as an EREV or PHEV, participants were interested in seeing fuel 

consumption values for each mode of operation, although some were interested in seeing 

a consumption value for the two modes expressed in MPGe162 in addition to displaying 

the separate consumption information. 

 d. Environmental Information 

Focus group participants did not independently identify the need to have 

environmental information on the label. However, in Phase 2, with the exception of one 

group, when given the option, all the groups elected to include environmental information 

on the label. Of the designs provided many participants selected a horizontal slider scale 

that ranked the vehicle’s impact as the most understandable conveyance of environmental 

information. 

Other displays of environmental metrics were examined in Phase 3. These 

displays included sliding scales segmented with relative rating systems as well as those 

with absolute values. Relative ratings such as stars or leaves were also shown. 

Participants commented that they wanted something that was quick and easy to read. 

Most focus group participants preferred something that was quick with little detail while 

some wanted more detailed information to help inform their decisions. Based on this 

finding, the agencies incorporated this approach into the co-proposed label designs in 

attempt to find the right balance of simple and detail information presentation. See 

section IV.B.1 for more comprehensive discussion of the environmental information 

focus group findings. 

3. Effective Metrics to Enable Vehicle Comparison

How can consumers compare vehicles when they are shopping? 

Beyond the statutory requirement to develop rating systems for fuel economy, 

GHGs, and other emissions, with designations of the “best” vehicles in terms of fuel 

economy and GHG emissions, the agencies recognize that the labels need to be 

consumer-friendly in terms of facilitating cross-vehicle and cross-technology 

comparisons. If consumers first encounter advanced technology vehicles on the dealer’s 

 

162 Participants were given this option using existing utility factor data as the method for combing the two 

modes of operation. See Section VI.B for a discussion about utility factors. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 120 of 339 

lot, and are not predisposed to buy one, a label that effectively conveys the benefits of 

purchasing such a vehicle through a clear and understandable rating system will be 

helpful in informing consumers and potentially educating consumers about the benefits of 

these vehicles. Through the research program, the agencies also investigated how the 

fuel economy labels might be designed so that consumers could easily compare the fuel 

economy, costs, and environmental impacts across a range of vehicle technologies -- 

from conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. 

Focus groups also provided feedback about various metrics which were intended 

to help a consumer compare a vehicle to other vehicles, as required by statute. In Phases 

1 and 3, participants were shown not only rating scales such as a numerical or five stars 

system, but also a slider scale similar to the bar that exists on the current fuel economy 

label for within-class comparisons, both of which the agencies believed would meet the 

statutory requirement to provide a rating system. The participants seem to be split into 

two camps: those that prefer the analytical detail of the value scale, and those that prefer 

the simplicity of a star-type rating scale. 

For fuel economy and fuel consumption, Phase 1 participants were shown two 

kinds of examples: one that compared vehicles only within their current fuel economy 

class, and one that showed both a within-class comparison and a comparison among all 

vehicles. These comparisons were shown using gallons per hundred mile values and 

miles per gallon values. The majority of participants preferred the metric that showed the 

subject vehicle as it compared to all vehicles and as it compared to its fuel economy class 

in units of miles per gallon. 

In Phase 2 most focus group participants said that they would like an effective 

way to compare among disparate vehicle technologies. Many settled on miles per gallon 

equivalent as a comparative metric, but most did not know what the equivalency was 

based upon. In Phase 3, when comparing advanced technology vehicles, most 

participants either used the MPGe value or the annual cost value to compare across 

vehicles. Some used the fuel economy rating systems that were provided. In general, the 

findings from the focus groups established no clear preference or approach for how to 

effectively communicate comparative vehicle information that would be useful to most 

consumers. 

 The expert panel disagreed that the focus group generated labels could be used 

effectively to compare across vehicle technologies-- especially to the level of information 

found on the advanced technology labels, which they described as “scary” and 

“unfriendly.” They were clear to point out, however, that their issues were with the label 

design, and that they were not rejecting the information contained on the label. The 

expert panel stated that there are inherent differences in reviewing labels in a focus group 

compared to on a dealership lot, where you have, on average, very short viewing time. 

The expert panel suggested that processing this amount of information quickly would be 

challenging, which could lead many consumers to tune out the label completely. As 

mentioned above, the panel recommended that the agencies roll up fuel economy, 

environmental impacts and cost information into a single easily understood letter/grade 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 121 of 339 

approach that will be intuitive for most consumers. The grade could be used across all 

technologies providing consumers easy comparative information. The expert panel 

allowed that the more complicated information could be made available in the bottom 

half of the label but argued that it would be crucial to retain a simple compelling 

comparison in the top portion of the label. The panel also suggested including a 

comparative metric that shows the potential savings from buying a more fuel efficient 

vehicle, as saving money historically has been a very strong motivator for consumers. 

4. Effective Whole Label Designs 

How should the new labels be designed to meet the statutory requirements while 

best raising consumers’ understanding of fuel efficiency, fuel cost and environmental 

impact? 

 In addition to the examination of individual label elements described above, 

consumer research designed by EPA and NHTSA investigated the effects of various 

whole label designs on consumer comprehension and utilization, in order to test whether 

the labels would still be useful when all of the elements were put together. This inquiry 

is important because there is only so much space that information can occupy both on the 

label and in the consumer’s mind when standing on the dealer’s lot and confronted with 

so much other information. In order to provide sufficient information while ensuring that 

it remains understandable for the greatest number of consumers, a balancing act is 

inevitable. The consumer research attempted to assess how best the balance could be 

struck, as discussed further below in Section III. 

The expert panel offered very strong opinions on what, given their experience, 

would make a label effective in engaging the public. They strongly recommended that 

the top portion of the label contain only one element – a “grade” that would combine as 

many of our required metrics as possible. This information should be big, bold, and easy 

to process while walking around a dealership. The label space under the grade would be 

reserved for the specific information required in the statute or deemed important in focus 

groups and other market research. When the panel was presented with label designs that 

had multiple metrics, explanatory text, and graphical icons, with no one element standing 

out, they felt that the labels were confusing and intimidating. The expert panel’s 

consensus view, after viewing the draft labels developed through the focus groups, was 

that these labels would be daunting for most consumers to process, making them inclined 

to “tune out” even the most basic information. Their strongest recommendation: Keep it 

simple.163

5. Tools beyond the Label

What purchase process do consumers currently use to make new vehicle 

purchasing decisions? Given this process, when are the most effective opportunities to 

communicate fuel economy and environmental information? 

 

163 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, 

August 2010, p. 15-17. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 122 of 339 

a. Vehicle Purchase Process 

The vehicle purchase process is complex and iterative. There may be many 

opportunities to inform consumers about the fuel economy and environmental impact of 

the vehicles they are considering. Although much of this proposal focuses on the actual 

fuel economy label, the agencies recognize that consumers seek out fuel economy and 

environmental information at other times in the purchase process beyond simply viewing 

the fuel economy label on vehicles during visits to dealerships. In order to determine the 

most effective means to provide fuel economy and environmental information to 

consumers, the agencies sought to better understand when and how consumers encounter 

or search for this type of information in their vehicle purchase decision-making process. 

Information on this vehicle buying process was obtained in an on-line survey of 

focus group participants prior to the actual focus groups. In addition, at the start of each 

session, participants were asked to discuss their purchase process so we could better 

understand the nuances associated with the responses we had received through the on-line 

survey. The pre-group online survey indicated that a majority of respondents already had 

a vehicle type in mind when they began the process. Consumers appear to narrow the 

spectrum from all available vehicles to the vehicle type or types they will research 

depending on their specific needs and interests. In general, the focus groups used broad 

categories to describe vehicle groupings, such as SUVs, minivans, sport cars, trucks, 

economy cars, and midsize cars.164 For example, some focus group respondents said they 

narrowed their search based on vehicle cargo space, for others it was sedans, and for 

others it was SUVs and minivans. 

According to the pre-focus group online survey and the focus groups themselves, 

a majority of the participants indicated that price/affordability was one of the top five 

factors that influenced their vehicle choice. Other key factors that influenced 

participants’ vehicle choice included gas mileage/fuel economy, safety, reliability, size, 

interior and exterior appearance, comfort, brand name and performance. The agencies 

also reviewed existing literature on the factors that influence vehicle choice. For example, 

a 2009 survey of people between the ages of 18 and 30 (“Generation Y”) found gas 

mileage to be the top factor indicated by participants as critical to vehicle purchasing 

decisions, followed by affordability/price.165 Both demographic and psychographic 

factors (e.g., ‘what a vehicle says about me’) also play a role in the vehicle purchase 

process.166

 

164 These categories are not necessarily related to the current 14 EPA-designated classes of vehicles. 

Vehicle classes are described in 40 CFR 600.315-08. 

165 Deloitte. “Connecting with Gen Y: Making the short list,” 2010, p.2. Available at 

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomUnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_automotive_Deloitte%20Automotive%20Gen%20Y%20Exe

cutive%20Summary_0107.pdf (last accessed August 13, 2010). 166 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 

2010, p. 30-39. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 123 of 339 

At present however, environmental impacts are not top purchasing considerations 

for most consumers. Focus group participants indicated that environmental impacts were 

not a consideration in the type of the vehicle they purchase. Only a small fraction of the 

participants in the pre-group online survey considered “low emissions” to be key factor 

when making a vehicle purchase decision. This finding is also supported by the literature 

review. Consumer research indicates that although consumers have a growing interest in 

purchasing “greener” vehicles, environmental impact is not sufficient by itself for most 

consumers to be willing to pay a premium.167 

Another important aspect of the vehicle purchase process is how consumers 

research vehicles. Two-thirds of the respondents to the pre-focus group online survey 

reported they had researched fuel economy prior to buying their vehicle. Based on the 

available choices in the pre-focus group survey, respondents reported gathering fuel 

economy information from manufacturer websites, Consumer Reports, auto dealers, 

vehicle search websites, automobile magazines, others with similar vehicles, government 

websites, television advertisements, and the Fuel Economy label itself. The literature 

review found that consumers increasingly research fuel economy information online. For 

example, traffic on the DOE and EPA web site www.fueleconomy.gov increased from 

400,000 user sessions in 1999 to more than 30 million in 2008.168 Other Internet sources 

used to research vehicles during the purchase process include consumer-to-consumer 

tools such as blogs and web forums.169 

Another finding from the literature review is that consumers are likely to be closer 

to purchasing a vehicle by the time they visit the dealership than they were in the past.170

This highlights the value of educational tools beyond the label to provide consumers with 

information on a vehicle’s fuel economy and environmental impact. Online tools may be 

particularly important. In addition to the Internet being a source of information for 

consumers, online sales of cars have been steadily increasing in the U.S. in recent years 

(although they still represent a small percentage of total car sales).171 

b. Consumer Education 

As described above, the vehicle purchase decision is not based entirely on the fuel 

economy label information, but is complex and iterative, and messages presented in 

contexts beyond the label may be even more helpful in getting consumers the information 

 

167 Ibid., p. 8. 168 Greene, D.L., Gibson, R., and Hopson, J., “Reducing Oil Use and CO2 Emissions by Informing 

Consumers’ Fuel Economy Decisions: The Role for Clean Cities,” prepared by Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, August 2009, p.1. Available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/fuel_economy_strat_paper.pdf (last accessed August 13, 

2010). 

169 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 

2010, p. 23. 

170 Ibid., p.18-19. 171 Deloitte. “A new era: Accelerating toward 2020 – An automotive industry transformed,” 2009, p.12. 

Available at http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomIndia/Local%20Assets/Documents/A%20New%20Era%20-

%20Auto%20Transformation%20Report_Online.pdf (last accessed August 13, 2010). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 124 of 339 

they need about fuel economy, fuel cost, GHGs, and other emissions. Several resources 

maintained by EPA and DOE are already available to help consumers obtain information 

about comparative vehicle fuel economy and environmental information, including 

www.fueleconomy.gov,172 the Fuel Economy Guide,173 and the Green Vehicle Guide.174 

In addition to the information sources and tools already available, under EISA, Congress 

requires NHTSA, in consultation with EPA and DOE, to develop a consumer education 

program to improve consumer understanding of automobile performance with regard to 

fuel economy, greenhouse gas and other emissions. 

While this campaign is still in its very early stages and is not the subject of this 

rulemaking, it will be investigating modifications to existing tools, new collaborations for 

information dissemination and, potentially, new forms of media utilization in 

communicating the relationship of automobile performance to fuel economy and 

emissions. Particularly given the changes to the label that we anticipate will result from 

this rulemaking, introducing consumers to the new information available to them and 

how it can be used as they consider their next vehicle purchase will be very important. 

Since the vehicle purchase process is multifaceted, EPA and NHTSA would like 

to better understand how various information tools beyond the label can provide critical 

fuel economy information to consumers. EPA and NHTSA especially seek to understand 

what additional types of consumer information and tools are most important and what 

level of individualized information is needed by consumers in the future. 

There are a variety of existing education campaigns and resources to help enable 

consumers to make more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly transportation 

choices. These include the Federal Highway Administration’s initiative “It All Adds Up 

to Cleaner Air,”175 the “Cleaner Cars for Maine”176 program, and the “Drive Smarter 

Challenge” campaign.177 Brief descriptions of these and other education campaigns are 

available in the literature review report.178 Such campaigns may inform the agencies’ 

development of educational tools to help consumers make more informed vehicle 

purchasing decisions. 

The agencies request comment on ideas for the most effective means to educate 

consumers about the new elements and metrics being proposed on the label. In addition, 

EPA and NHTSA request specific comment on what additional tools we could provide to 

increase consumer comprehension about complex advanced technology vehicles and 

automobile performance related to fuel economy and emissions. We are proposing that 

this campaign potentially include both traditional marketing mechanisms, such as 

brochures, public service advertisements, media placements, and dealership-distributed 

 

172 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/. 173 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2000.htm. 174 http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do. 175 See http://www.italladdsup.gov (last accessed August 13, 2010). 176 See http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/lev4me/index.html (last accessed August 13, 2010). 177 See http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/ (last accessed August 13, 2010). 178 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 

2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 125 of 339 

checklists, along with more innovative approaches, which may include crowdsourcing 

with social media, interactive web site displays at dealerships that would allow 

consumers to “personalize” their fuel economy label, smartphone applications. In 

addition, per the recommendation of the expert panel, we are proposing to develop a web 

site that would be launched in conjunction with the new label. This consumer-focused, 

user friendly web site would provide more specific information on the label, along with 

access to the tools, applications, social media, and materials mentioned above. 

All messages and materials will be tailored according to the method of 

communication and the target audience. EPA is requesting comment on effective 

messaging, materials, and methods of communication. 

V. Implementation of the New Label 

A. Timing 

As previously noted, the agencies are proposing that the new label requirements 

initially take effect with the 2012 model year. This regulatory action is scheduled to be 

finalized in late December of 2010 or January of 2011 with a final rule effective 30 days 

after publication. This timing is similar to what was provided in the 2006 label rule.179 

Model year 2012 vehicles can be introduced as early as January 2011, and in fact 

EPA has already heard from at least one manufacturer that plans such an early 

introduction, Given that this regulatory action is not scheduled to be finalized until 

December of 2010 and that it is possible, based on when the final rule is published in the 

Federal Register for the effective date of the new regulations to be a date in March of 

2011 it is clear that not all of the 2012 model year can be captured by the proposed 

regulations. There may also be cases where a manufacturer prints label “blanks” early in 

the model year, even if they plan to introduce vehicles in the more typical time frame of 

late summer and early fall. Although the proposed regulations do not presume anything 

regarding the date of finalization of the new label and only specify applicability to the 

2012 model year, we expect that the final rule will have to take these issues into account. 

 

The final rule will likely specify a date of applicability of the new regulations that is 

some date certain after publication of the final rule that would allow manufacturers 

adequate time to plan for and implement the new designs. We believe that a date on the 

order of 30 days after publication would be appropriate, where vehicles produced after 

that date would have to use the new label format. We would of course encourage the 

voluntary use of the new label to the greatest extent possible from the date of signature to 

the specified effective date. The agencies request comments on the appropriate timeframe 

for implementing these new label requirements. 

The agencies recognize that some of the potential changes in label design, including 

color graphics that would be printed at production run-time and differing footprints that 

necessitate redesign of the overall Monroney label may impact the amount of lead time 

 

179 See 40 CFR 600.301-08 and 71 FR 77879 (December 27, 2006). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 126 of 339 

required by manufacturers. While we believe that it is extremely important for the final 

label changes to take effect as soon as possible, we seek comment on these specific 

potential lead time issues. 

To introduce the new label and ensure that the public understands the new 

information and format, the agencies plan to conduct extensive public outreach 

concurrent with the implementation of a final rule. We will provide information about 

the new label and how to use it via web-based information, fact sheets, and other 

communication methods. This information will be designed to explain all aspects of the 

new label 

 

B. Labels for 2011 model year advanced technology vehicles 

The new fuel economy label will address advanced technology vehicles, such as 

EVs and PHEVs, which some manufacturers are planning to introduce into the U.S. 

market prior to the 2012 model year. EPA issued regulations in 2009 that provided EPA 

discretion to authorize appropriate changes to the current fuel economy label with 

individual manufacturers, specifically with respect to advanced technology.180 These 

regulations are applicable until this rule is finalized. 

 To address labels for advanced technology vehicles introduced before this rule is 

finalized, EPA may allow any manufacturer of such vehicles that will be introduced prior 

to the 2012 model year to use one of the co-proposed labels, or an alternative label that 

meets EPA’s approval. For example, EPA could evaluate whether a manufacturer could 

use a table that compares various metrics (e.g., fuel economy (mpg), electricity consumed 

(kWh), miles per gallon equivalent (mpg-e), and total energy cost) for different mileages 

the vehicle is driven between a full charge of the battery. This approach would provide 

the most complete amount of information for the vehicle's performance as a function of 

distance travelled. The broad range of metrics could also make it easier for the consumer 

to understand the energy consumption of the vehicle. The down side to including a table 

is that it provides a lot of information and could be potentially confusing for some 

consumers. 

Manufacturers intending to introduce an advanced technology vehicle as a 2011 

model year vehicle should meet with EPA to discuss the details of actual implementation. 

For example, EPA would discuss with the manufacturer the fact that the label format and 

information may only be used for the 2011 model year and may change for 2012 

depending on the outcome of the final label regulations. EPA would also discuss in 

conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) what aspects of the label 

information could be advertised and would also discuss with the manufacturer the details 

of specific test values used, such as mile per gallon equivalent, kW-hr per 100 miles, 

blended mode operation for a PHEV, etc. 

 

180 74 FR 61537, Nov 25, 2009. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 127 of 339 

C. Implementation of Label Content 

Although much of the information presented on the label is determined from test 

data specific to the labeled vehicle or can be codified in the regulations, there are 

elements that will require annual (or in some cases, possibly less frequent) information 

provided by EPA. This is no different from today’s label and the annual guidance letter 

published by EPA that includes the fuel economy ranges for each class of automobile, the 

fuel price information to be used to calculate costs, and other relevant information. This 

information will have to continue to be provided by EPA on an annual basis, but the new 

ratings proposed for the new labels will also require that EPA provide annually the range 

of fuel economy of all vehicles as well as the range of CO2 emissions of all vehicles. 

VI. Additional Related EPA Proposals 

A. Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Test Procedures 

1. Electric Vehicles

There currently is no federal test procedure for measuring fuel economy for 

electric vehicles. EPA has periodically performed fuel economy testing for electric 

vehicles utilizing test procedures and protocols developed by the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE), specifically J1634. Manufacturers may continue to use SAEJ1634 test 

protocols, as cancelled in October 2002 until EPA can comment on a reissued SAE1634 

that is in draft, with the exception of not using the C coefficient adjustment in paragraph 

4.4.2. The C coefficient adjustment was intended to reflect air conditioning loads. Air 

conditioning usage is not considered in CAFÉ testing and is accounted for via the 5-cycle 

or derived 5-cycle equations for labeling. Until recently, there have been very few 

electric vehicles sold in the U.S. market. The few exceptions, such as the EV1 from 

General Motors (GM), were only made available to a select few customers for a limited 

time. As such, there was not a pressing need for an electric vehicle test procedure. 

However, with the imminent release of several new battery electric vehicles from 

manufacturers such as Ford and Nissan, the need for a federal test procedure for 

measuring fuel economy or fuel consumption for electric vehicles is apparent. 

Fuel economy estimates are measured for “city” and “highway” operation. Prior 

to the 2008 model year, all vehicles were fuel economy tested over just two test cycles: 

the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or “city” test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test 

(HFET or “highway” test). In December, 2006, EPA published revisions to improve the 

calculation of fuel economy estimates to better reflect real world fuel economy 

performance181. These revisions included three additional chassis dynamometer test 

cycles to the current FTP and HFET for fuel economy testing purposes. The three 

additional cycles were the US06, SC03, and the Cold Temperature FTP. Prior to the 

2008 model year, all three test cycles were used for emissions purposes for either the 

Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) emissions standards (US06 and SC03) or 

the cold temperature (20oF) emission standards. Beginning in the 2008 model year, all 

 

181 71 FR 77931, Dec. 27, 2006. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 128 of 339 

vehicles tested for fuel economy labeling purposes had to use the new “5-cycle” fuel 

economy methodology which either required testing all vehicles over the five test cycles 

discussed above or apply an equivalent 5-cycle correction referred to as the derived 

MPG- based approach. For alternative fueled vehicles, including electric vehicles, 

manufacturers have the option for fuel economy testing to test their vehicle over all five 

test cycles or use a derived MPG-based approach 

a. FTP or “City” Test 

The procedure for testing and measuring fuel economy and vehicle driving range 

for electric vehicles is similar to the process used by the average consumer to calculate 

the fuel economy of their personal vehicle. The distance the vehicle can operate until the 

battery is discharged to the point where it can no longer provide sufficient propulsive 

energy energy to maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-78 is 

measured and divided by the total amount of electrical energy necessary to fully recharge 

the battery, similar to refueling the gas tank of a gasoline powered vehicle. 

The first step of the procedure is to determine the distance the vehicle operates 

before the battery becomes discharged to the point where the vehicle can no longer 

provide sufficient propulsive energy to maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 

CFR 86.115-78. This begins with the preconditioning of the vehicle. The electric 

vehicle is preconditioned per 40 CFR Part 86, Section 132. Following preconditioning, 

the Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) will be brought to full charge. The 

RESS will remain plugged into the electrical source for a minimum of 12 hours. For the 

FTP or city test cycles, the chassis dynamometer procedures will be conducted pursuant 

to 40 CFR 86.135 with the exception that the vehicle will run consecutive test cycles until 

the vehicle is unable to maintain the FTP speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 

86.115-78. To clarify, an FTP historically consisted of two Urban Dynamometer Driving 

Schedules. The Ftp was later shortened to one full UDDS and only the first bag or phase 

of the second UDDS. The second phase of the second UDDS was considered just a 

repeat of the second phase of the first UDDS. In the context of electric vehicles, an FTP 

is two full consecutive UDDS’s. The second UDDS of any FTP cycle will be started 10 

minutes after the cold start as per §86.135. Subsequent FTP cycles may require up to 30 

minutes between starts due to test facility limitations. Between starts, the RESS is not to 

be charged. During the 10 minute or other longer soaks, the vehicle should have the hood 

closed and the cooling fans shut off. 

If an electric vehicle cannot reach the FTP top speed, then the test will terminate 

once the vehicle speeds cannot be maintained within 2 mph as described in 40 CFR 

86.115-78 up to the maximum speed. For low powered electric vehicles that cannot 

reach the FTP top speed, the vehicle top speed is the maximum speed the vehicle reached 

during the first FTP. The Administrator may approve alternate end of test criteria. For 

low powered electric vehicles that by design cannot maintain the speed tolerances as 

expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-78, low powered vehicles, the vehicle will continue testing 

if the vehicle is operated at maximum power. This provision is intended to apply 

uniformly throughout all the consecutive FTP cycles. A vehicle that can maintain trace 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 129 of 339 

speed on the first FTP cannot then be declared a low powered vehicle for subsequent FTP 

cycles. Upon reaching the end of test criteria, the distance driven shall be recorded and 

the vehicle decelerated to a stop. The end of test criteria is when the vehicle can no 

longer maintain the drive cycle per 40 CFR 86.115-78 or, for a low powered EV, can no 

longer maintain the speed tolerances per 40 CFR 86.115-78 up to the vehicle maximum 

speed as defined above. Similarly, low powered vehicles that cannot maintain the drive 

cycle due to insufficient acceleration will use the trace driven on first UDDS as the 

tolerance for end of test. 

The final stage of the electric vehicle test procedure is the measurement of the 

electrical energy used to operate the vehicle. The end of test recharging procedure is 

intended to return the RESS to the full charge equivalent of the pre test conditions. The 

recharging procedure must start within three hours after completing the EV testing. The 

vehicle will remain on charge for a minimum of 12 hours to a maximum of 36 hours. 

After reaching full charge and the minimum soak time of 12 hours has been reached, the 

manufacturer may physically disconnect the RESS from the grid. The alternating current 

(AC) watt-hours must be recorded throughout the charge time. It is important that the 

vehicle soak conditions must not be violated. The measured AC watt-hours must include 

the efficiency of the charger system. The measured AC watt hours are intended to reflect 

all applicable electricity consumption including charger losses, battery and vehicle 

conditioning during the recharge and soak, and the electricity consumption during the 

drive cycles. Finally, the raw electricity consumption is calculated by dividing the 

recharge AC watt-hours by the distance traveled before the end of the test criteria is 

reached. 

b. HFET or “Highway” Test 

Similar to the FTP test procedure, the first step of the procedure is to determine 

the distance the vehicle operates before the battery becomes fully discharged. This 

begins with the preconditioning of the vehicle. Vehicle preconditioning is to be 

conducted as per 40 CFR Part 86, Section 132. Following preconditioning, the RESS 

will be brought to full charge. The RESS will remain plugged into the electrical source 

for a minimum of 12 hours. The vehicle may remain plugged into the electrical source 

up to 36 hours. 

Dynamometer procedures will be conducted pursuant to 40 CFR 600.111 with the 

exceptions that electric vehicles will run consecutive cycles of the HFET until the end of 

test criteria is reached. Subsequent HFET cycle pairs may require up to 30 minutes of 

soak time between HFET cycle pairs due to facility limitations. Between cycle pairs, the 

vehicle hood is to be closed and the cooling fans shut off. Between starts, the RESS is 

not to be charged. 

If an electric vehicle cannot reach the HFET top speed, then the test will terminate 

once the vehicle speeds cannot be maintained, up to the maximum speed. For low 

powered electric vehicles that cannot reach the HFET top speed, the vehicle top speed is 

the maximum speed the vehicle reached during the first HFET. The Administrator may 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 130 of 339 

approve alternate end of test criteria. For low powered electric vehicles that by design 

cannot maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-78, the vehicle will 

continue testing if the vehicle is operated at maximum power. This provision is intended 

to apply uniformly throughout all the consecutive HFET cycles. Similarly, low powered 

vehicles that cannot maintain the drive cycle due to insufficient acceleration will use the 

trace driven on first UDDS as the tolerance for end of test.A vehicle that can maintain 

trace speed on the first HFET cannot then be declared a low powered vehicle for 

proceeding HFET cycles. 

Similar to the FTP test procedure, the final stage of the HFET test procedure is the 

measurement of the electrical energy used to operate the vehicle. The end of test 

recharging procedure is intended to return the RESS to the full charge equivalent of the 

pre test conditions. The recharging procedure must start within three hours after 

completing the EV testing. The vehicle will remain on charge for a minimum of 12 hours 

to a maximum of 36 hours. After reaching full charge and the minimum soak time of 12 

hours has been reached, the manufacturer may physically disconnect the RESS from the 

grid. The alternating current (AC) watt-hours must be recorded throughout the charge 

time. It is important that the vehicle soak conditions must not be violated. The measured 

AC watt-hours must include the efficiency of the charger system. The measured AC watt 

hours are intended to reflect all applicable electricity consumption including charger 

losses, battery and vehicle conditioning during the recharge and soak, and the electricity 

consumption during the drive cycles. Finally, the raw electricity consumption is 

calculated by dividing the recharge AC watt-hours by the distance traveled before the end 

of the test criteria is reached. 

c. Other EV Test Procedures 

The Administrator may approve or require equivalent or additional EV test 

procedures including incorporating via reference SAEJ1634 published after this notice. 

2. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

a. PHEV Test Procedure Rationale 

Test procedures for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) are required to 

quantify some operation unique to plug-in hybrids. The intent in developing new PHEV 

test procedures is to use existing test cycles and test procedures where applicable. PHEV 

operation can be generally classified into two modes of operation, charge depleting and 

charge sustaining operation. Charge depleting operation can be described as vehicle 

operation where the rechargeable energy storage system (RESS), commonly batteries, is 

being depleted of its “wall” charge. Charge sustaining operation can best be described as 

conventional hybrid operation. 

New procedures for charge depleting operation would consist of existing test 

cycles repeated until the PHEV RESS is depleted to charge sustaining operation. 

Whereas in the past a conventional vehicle would be expected to consume fuel and emit 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 131 of 339 

emissions over repetitive identical test cycles consistently, the same cannot be said of 

PHEVs. PHEV fuel consumption, fuel mix, and emissions may change as the RESS is 

depleted. In order to accurately assess the emissions and fuel efficiency of a PHEV, the 

PHEV requires testing over the entire charge depleting range. Testing over the entire 

charge depleting range requires new test provisions to address vehicle setup and prep, 

measuring and charging the RESS, operation over repetitive test cycles, and calculating 

any new values that are now measured over repetitive test cycle. 

As described above, charge sustaining operation can best be described as 

conventional hybrid operation. EPA would continue to use existing hybrid electric 

vehicle test procedures. The primary differences between HEV and other conventional 

vehicle testing are the need to monitor RESS state of charge and the extra drive time 

required to insure vehicle warm operation during the Federal Test Procedure. The RESS 

is measured and subject to the state of charge tolerances, below, to insure all energy is 

accurately accounted. The fully warm operation is satisfied by running a full 4 phase Ftp 

instead of the abbreviated 3 phase Ftp as traditionally used for conventional vehicle 

testing. 

For the purposes of fuel economy label testing, PHEVs would be subject to the 

same test cycles as other light duty vehicles with a few exceptions. While operating in 

charge depleting mode, a PHEV is using electricity originally from an off board source. 

This is to say that a PHEV is operating at least partially on an alternative fuel while 

operating in charge depleting mode. For the purposes of fuel economy, PHEVs could 

continue to use the derived 5-cycle adjustment while in charge depleting mode. The 

derived 5-cycle adjustment would be applied to the total city and total highway fuel 

economies separately. For the purposes of applying the 5-cycle correction, the total fuel 

economies in charge depleting mode include both of the fuels consumed, typically gas 

and electricity, as expressed in a miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent unit. The 5-

cycle correction is to be applied to the combined energy of each mode of operation even 

if the energy consumption is ultimately fuel specific. Applying a correction to the 

gasoline and electricity consumption separately could lead to a smaller adjustment than 

other vehicles since the 5-cycle correction is not linear. While in charge sustain mode, 

PHEVs would be subject to the same test procedures as conventional hybrid electric 

vehicles. 

 

PHEVs must meet all applicable emissions standards regardless of RESS state of 

charge. EPA will consider a RESS as an adjustable parameter for the sake of emissions 

testing. It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to insure vehicles are emissions compliant. 

EPA typically allows good engineering judgment in applying worse case emission testing 

criteria. For the purposes of certification compliance, EPA will consider charge sustain 

operation as worse case. EPA may confirmatory test or request the manufacturer to 

provide test data for any test cycle at any state of charge. Evaluation of fuel economy 

testing emissions may be used to change worse case emissions assumptions. 

b. PHEV Test Procedure and Calculations 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 132 of 339 

The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference SAEJ1711, in part, for PHEV test 

procedures. 

Charge Depleting Operation – FTP or “City” Test and HFET or “Highway” Test

The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference SAEJ1711 chapters 3 and 4 for 

definitions and test procedures, respectively, where appropriate, with the following 

exceptions and clarifications. UF weighting is not intended for use with criteria 

pollutants. 

Test cycles will continue until the end of the phase in which charge sustain 

operation is confirmed. Charge sustain operation is confirmed when one or more phases 

or cycles satisfy the Net Energy Change requirements below. EPA seeks comment on 

manufacturers optionally terminating charge deplete testing before charge sustain 

operation is confirmed with state of charge provided that the RESS has a higher SOC at 

charge deplete testing termination than in charge sustain operation. In the case of Plug In 

Hybrid Electric Vehicles with an all electric range, engine start time will be recorded but 

the test does not necessarily terminate with engine start. PHEVs with all electric 

operation follow the same test termination criteria as blended mode PHEVs. Testing can 

only be terminated at the end of a test cycle. The Administrator may approve alternate 

end of test criteria. 

For the purposes of charge depleting CO2 and fuel economy testing, 

manufacturers may elect to report one measurement per phase (one bag per UDDS). 

Exhaust emissions need not be reported or measured in phases the engine does not 

operate. 

End of test recharging procedure is intended to return the RESS to a full charge 

equivalent to pre test conditions. The recharge AC watt hours must be recorded 

throughout the charge time. Vehicle soak conditions must not be violated. The AC watt 

hours must include the charger efficiency. The measured AC watt hours are intended to 

reflect all applicable electricity consumption including charger losses, battery and vehicle 

conditioning during the recharge and soak, and the electricity consumption during the 

drive cycles. 

Net Energy Change Tolerance, NEC, is to be applied to the RESS to confirm charge 

sustaining operation. The EPA is proposing to adopt the 1% of fuel energy NEC state of 

charge criteria as expressed in SAEJ1711. The Administrator may approve alternate 

NEC tolerances and state of charge correction factors if the 1% criteria is insufficient or 

inappropriate. 

Preconditioning special procedures are optional for traditional “warm” test cycles 

that are now required to test starting at full RESS charge due to charge depleting range 

testing. If the vehicle is equipped with a charge sustain switch, the preconditioning cycle 

may be conducted per 600.111 provided that the RESS is not charged. Exhaust emissions 

are not taken in preconditioning drives. Alternate vehicle warm up strategies may be 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 133 of 339 

approved by the Administrator. This will allow a method for starting “warm” test cycles 

with a fully charged battery. 

Hybrid Charge Sustaining Operation – FTP or “City” Test and HFET or 

“Highway” Test

The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference SAEJ1711 chapters 3 and 4 for 

definitions and test procedures. The EPA proposes to adopt the 1% of fuel energy NEC 

state of charge criteria as expressed in SAEJ1711. The Administrator may approve 

alternate NEC tolerances and state of charge correction factors if the 1% criteria is 

insufficient or inappropriate. 

 Preconditioning special procedures are optional for traditional “warm” test cycles 

that are now required to test starting at full RESS charge due to charge depleting range 

testing. If the vehicle is equipped with a charge sustain switch, the preconditioning cycle 

may be conducted per 600.111 provided that the RESS is not charged. Exhaust emissions 

are not taken in preconditioning drives. Alternate vehicle warm up strategies may be 

approved by the Administrator. 

Charge Depleting Range Determination 

 Actual Charge Depleting Range (RCDA) will be a calculated value that uses the 

charge sustaining state of charge of the RESS to define the RCDA endpoint. Due to the 

nature of PHEVs, RCDA will require calculation and is not necessarily when the engine 

first starts. Defining RCDA using only engine on could leave PHEVs with three modes of 

operation. These three modes would be charge depletion, charge regeneration, and 

charge sustaining. If the regeneration of the RESS from the engine is not accounted for 

in the charge depleting mode, the RESS could be deep cycled beyond the CS SOC to gain 

range while the increase in CO2 emissions due to the RESS regeneration would not be 

captured in the charge sustaining testing. 

 

Calculation of RCDA will require monitoring the RESS SOC throughout charge 

depleting testing. The RCDA for each cycle would be the driven cycle distance from start 

of CD testing until the charge sustaining SOC is “crossed”. The EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the SAEJ1711 calculation for Actual Charge Depleting Range. 

c. Other Test Cycles 

PHEV and Electric vehicle testing over the SC03, US06, or Cold CO test cycles 

would follow the same general procedure as the FTP and HFED. EPA would consider 

the use of alternate or equivalent PHEV test procedures and may incorporate by reference 

SAEJ1711. 

d. Test Tolerances 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 134 of 339 

State of Charge tolerance correction factors may be approved by the Administrator. 

RESS state of charge tolerances beyond the 1% of fuel energy may be approved by the 

Administrator. 

e. Mileage and Service Accumulation 

The EPA is seeking comment on modifying the minimum and maximum 

allowable test vehicle accumulated mileage for both EVs and PHEVs. Due to the nature 

of PHEV and EV operation, testing may require many more vehicle miles than 

conventional vehicles. Furthermore, EVs and PHEVs either do not have engines or may 

use the engine for only a fraction of the miles driven. 

f. Test Fuels 

Electric Vehicles and PHEVs are to be recharged using the supplied manufacturer 

method provided that the methods are available to consumers. This method could include 

the electricity service requirements such as service amperage, voltage, and phase. 

Manufacturers may employ the use of voltage regulators in order to reduce test to test 

variability with prior Administrator approval. 

B. Utility Factors 

1. Utility Factor Background

Utility Factors are a method of combining CO2 emissions, fuel consumption, or 

other metrics from multiple modes of operation into one value. The extent to which 

utility factors are used on a fuel economy label is completely dependent upon label 

format. That is to say, some PHEV label formats may not require utility factors at all or 

possibly only for CO2. This discussion on utility factor is required to understand the 

different PHEV label formats within this proposal. 

As discussed previously, PHEVs can use two types of energy sources: (1) an 

onboard battery charged by plugging the vehicle into the electrical grid possibly via a 

conventional wall outlet to power an electric motor, as well as (2) a gas or diesel-powered 

engine to propel the vehicle or power a generator used to provide electricity to the 

electric motor. Depending on how these vehicles are operated, they can use electricity 

exclusively, never use electricity and operate like a conventional hybrid, or operate in 

some combination of these two modes. This can make it difficult to estimate fuel 

economy, fuel consumption, annual cost, or CO2 emissions fromthese vehicles. 

The EPA has worked closely with stakeholders including vehicle manufacturers, 

the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the State of California, the Department of 

Energy (DOE), and others to develop an approach for estimating fuel economy, fuel 

consumption, cost, CO2 emission, or any other metric for vehicles that can operate using 

more than one energy source. EPA believes the appropriate method for combining the 

operation of vehicles that can operate with more than one fuel would be a weighted 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 135 of 339 

average of the appropriate metric for the two modes of operation. A methodology 

developed by SAE and DOE to predict the fractions of total distance driven in each mode 

of operation (electricity and gas) uses a term known as a utility factor (UF). UF’s were 

developed using data from the 2001 Department of Transportation “National Household 

Travel Survey”. A detailed method of UF development can be found in the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2841 “Utility Factor Definitions for Plug-In Hybrid 

Electric Vehicles Using Travel Survey Data”. At the time of this proposal, SAEJ2841 

was in the process of balloting prior to publishing. SAE reference documents can be 

obtained at www.SAE.org. By using a utility factor, it is possible to determine a 

weighted average of the electric and gasoline modes. For example, a UF of 0.8 would 

indicate that an all-electric capable PHEV operates in an all electric mode 80% of the 

time and uses the engine the other 20% of the time. In this example, the weighted 

average fuel economy value would be influenced more by the electrical operation than 

the engine operation. 

For the purposes of PHEVs, UF development makes several assumptions. 

Assumptions include: the first mode of operation is always electric assist or all electric 

drive, vehicles will be charged once per day, and that future PHEV drivers will follow 

drive patterns exhibited by the drivers in the surveys used in SAEJ2841. EPA 

acknowledges that current understanding of the above assumptions and that the data upon 

which utility factors were developed may change. Therefore, EPA may change the 

calculation of future utility factors in light of new data in a future rulemaking. 

2. General Application of Utility Factors

While acknowledging the assumptions above, a UF could be assigned to each 

successive test or phase of testing until the battery charge was depleted to the point where 

the PHEV sole source of power was from the gasoline or diesel engine. One minus the 

sum of all the utility factors would then represent the fraction of driving performed in this 

“gasoline or diesel mode.” Carbon dioxide emissions could then be expressed as: 

Equation VI.B.2-1 

Where: 

Ym is the Utility Factor averaged mass of carbon dioxide for a 

specific drive cycle. 

Yi are the CO2mass emissions or CO2 equivalent mass 

emissions for each phase or test cycle. For electricity, a carbon 

dioxide equivalent may be used as determined by the 

Administrator. 

CS

i

i

i

Ym ∑ YUF ii ∑ )1()( ×−+×= YUF

1

1
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 136 of 339 

Ycs is the charge sustain carbon dioxide mass emissions and for 

hybrids in the case of the FTP can be expressed as Ycs= 0.43* 

Yc + 0.57* YH., where Yc is the charge sustain cold start test 

and YH is the charge sustain hot start mass emissions of carbon 

dioxide. 

UFi is the driving cycle and sequentially specific utility factor. 

Likewise, the electrical consumption would be expressed by adding the electricity 

consumption from each mode. Since there is no electrical consumption in hybrid mode, 

or charge sustain mode, the equation for electricity consumption would be as follows: 

Equation VI.B.2-2 

Where Em is the utility factor averaged electricity consumption, Ei is 

the electricity consumption proportioned to each successive drive 

cycle, and UFi is the driving cycle and sequentially specific utility 

factor. 

3. Calculating combined values using Cycle Specific Utility Factors

Utility factors could be cycle specific not only due to different battery ranges on 

different test cycles but also due to the fact that “highway” type driving may imply longer 

trips than urban driving. This would lead to different utility factors for urban and 

highway driving. The following section explains the EPA proposal of assigning a utility 

factor to each successive phase or test cycle performed in charge depleting or “PHEV” 

mode. 

Utility factors can be assigned to each mode of operation according to the 

distance driven in each mode for a given powertrain combination. Rather than 

calculating a unique UF for each cycle based on measured distance driven, UF’s will be 

assigned to each successive phase of consecutive Urban Dynamometer Driving 

Schedules, and each successive Highway Fuel Economy Driving schedule of consecutive 

HFEDs. Composite city and composite highway CO2 emissions will first be calculated 

using test results and UFs from the respective cycles. Final combined values will then be 

an averaged 55% city and 45% highway value. The proposed cycle specific utility 

factors for UDDS or “city” driving are provided in Table VI.B.2-1 and the proposed 

cycle specific utility factors for HFEDS or “highway” driving are provided in Table 

VI.B.2-2. The method used to develop cycle specific utility factors can be found in 

SAEJ2841. EPA seeks comment on using utility factors other than the fleet 55/45 

city/highway specific utility factors for labeling and compliance. Finally, example CO2

calculations are provided below. 

∑ ×=

i

Em EUF ii 1 )(
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 137 of 339 

Table VI.B.2-1 

FTP Phase Specific Utility Factors

 Urban Driving, “City” 

Phase 

Distance, 

mi Cumulative UF Seq. UF 

1 3.59 0.125 0.125 

2 7.45 0.243 0.118 

3 11.04 0.340 0.096 

4 14.9 0.431 0.091 

5 18.49 0.505 0.074 

6 22.35 0.575 0.070 

7 25.94 0.632 0.057 

8 29.8 0.685 0.054 

9 33.39 0.729 0.044 

10 37.25 0.770 0.041 

11 40.84 0.803 0.033 

12 44.7 0.834 0.031 

13 48.29 0.859 0.025 

14 52.15 0.882 0.023 

15 55.74 0.900 0.018 

16 59.6 0.917 0.017 

Table VI.B.2-2 

HFED Cycle Specific Utility Factors

 Highway Driving 

HFEDS 

Distance, 

mi Cumulative UF Seq. UF 

1 10.3 0.125 0.125 

2 20.6 0.252 0.127 

3 30.9 0.378 0.126 

4 41.2 0.500 0.121 

5 51.5 0.610 0.111 

6 61.8 0.707 0.097 

7 72.1 0.787 0.080 

Example CO2 Calculations 

A PHEV was tested with the following results. The example PHEV operated over 

four consecutive UDDS to quantify charge depleting or “PHEV” mode and ran the 

required bag hybrid UDDS test to represent charge sustaining or “hybrid” mode. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 138 of 339 

Table VI.B.2-3 

Charge Depleting Example CO2Emissions

UDDS Bag Cycle 

Miles 

CO2

g/mi 

CO2

g 

Dc 

Integrated 

Amp Hrs 

Proportioned 

W hrs 

Measured 

Distance, mi 

UF Whr/mi 

1 1 3.59 50.0 180.5 4 705.88 3.61 0.125 195.5 

1 2 7.45 35.0 134.8 3.8 670.59 3.85 0.118 174.2 

2 3 11.04 30.0 107.4 3.7 652.94 3.58 0.096 182.4 

2 4 14.9 37.0 143.2 3.5 617.65 3.87 0.091 159.6 

3 5 18.49 55.7 198.3 2 352.94 3.56 0.074 99.1 

3 6 22.35 232.5 902.2 0 0 3.88 0.07 0.0 

4 7 25.94 249.2 877.3 0 0 3.52 0.057 0.0 

4 8 29.8 230.0 897.0 0 0 3.90 0.054 0.0 

Table VI.B.2-4 

Charge Sustaining Example CO2Emissions

UDDS Bag 

Cycle 

Miles CO2 g/mi CO2 g Measured Distance, mi 

1 1 3.59 251.4 910 3.62 

1 2 7.45 233.8 900 3.85 

2 3 11.04 251.4 890 3.54 

2 4 14.9 228.1 885 3.88 

Applying the above data for the example PHEV to the General UF formula in 

Equation VI.B.2-1 using Table VI.B.2-1 will yield the City CO2 value. Ym=50 CO2 g/mi 

x 0.125+ 35 CO2 g/mi x 0.118 + 30g CO2 g/mi + 0.096 + 37g CO2 g/mi x 0.091+ 55.7 

CO2 g/mi x 0.074 + 232.5 CO2 g/mi + 0.070 + 249.2 CO2 g/mi x 0.057 + 230 CO2 g/mi x 

0.054 + (1-(0.125+0.118+0.096+0.091+0.074+0.070+0.057+0.054) x (Ycs). Where Ycs 

= 0.43 x (910+900)/(3.62+3.85) + 0.57 x ( 890+885)/(3.54+3.88) = 241g CO2 g/mi. The 

total CO2 g/mi, Ym, excluding any electricity CO2 equivalence would then be 139 g/mi. 

To determine electricity consumption one would apply utility factors in a similar 

fashion using equation VI.B.2-2 and Table VI.B.2-1. Em= 195.5 W hr/mi x 0.125+ 

174.2 W hr/mi x 0.118 + 182.4 W hr/mi + 0.096 + 159.6 W hr/mi x 0.091+ 99.1 W hr/mi 

x 0.074 = 84.4 W hr/mi 

The combined CO2 from engine operation and the CO2 from the electrical 

consumption could be calculated by summing the two values, given a CO2 equivalency 

for electricity. For example, if the Watt hour CO2 equivalent was 0.26g CO2 per Watt 

hour, the total CO2 emissions could then be expressed as the sum of the CO2 and CO2-

equivalent emissions from both modes of operation. From the example above, the overall 

CO2 emissions would be 139 gCO2 per mile + (84.4 Whr/mi) 22gCO2equiv per mile = 

161g CO2 per mile. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 139 of 339 

Utility factors can also be used to calculate a miles per gallon equivalent 

measurement similar to the CO2 example above. Additional assumptions are required, 

however, when applying utility factors to a Corporate Average Fuel Economy and 

possibly a fuel economy labeling miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent measure. 

Previously, when calculating PHEV CO2 emissions, the CO2 emissions were part 

of a manufacturer fleet average. The same is true of Corporate Average Fuel Economy. 

CAFE is a fleet average. Except where explicitly noted for dual fueled vehicles, both 

CAFÉ and CO2 fleet calculations would use the cycle specific fleet utility factors. For 

the purposes of a possible label fuel economy, a fleet average is not the aim, but rather 

what the average driver would likely experience or expect. For this reason, the EPA is 

proposing the use of the cycle specific Multiday Individual Utility Factors. The 

individual utility factors do not weight vehicle miles traveled towards the longer trips like 

fleet utility factors. For a detailed explanation on utility factor development see 

SAEJ2841. 

Similar to determining a total CO2 emissions value for PHEVs, calculating a 

miles per gallon total for PHEVs will require an electricity to gasoline conversion. This 

miles per gallon equivalent of gasoline would be calculated differently for CAFÉ and 

label. For a FE label number, EPA would use a miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent 

energy factor for electricity of 33,705 watt hours per gallon.182 This same gasoline 

equivalency would be used for CAFÉ calculation, if the PHEV did not meet the 

minimum distance requirements of a dual fueled vehicle.183 In the case of PHEVs with 

diesel engines, EPA proposes to similarly require calculation of a miles per gallon 

equivalent for battery operation, but specifying instead to rely on a conversion using the 

energy content of diesel fuel. We propose to specify an energy content of 36,700 Watt 

hours per gallon of diesel fuel. This is based on the approximately 9 percent higher 

energy density for diesel fuel relative to gasoline. We request comment on this approach 

to calculating fuel economy values for diesel-fueled hybrid electric vehicles. 

If the PHEV met the dual fuel range minimums for electricity a Petroleum 

Equivalency Factor would be used instead of the gasoline equivalent energy factor. For a 

PHEV without fuel fired accessories, the PEF would be 82,049 watt hours per gallon of 

gasoline. For details on PEF and gasoline equivalent energy content see 10 CFR 474.3. 

Using the procedure for calculating a dual fueled vehicle FE for CAFÉ the fuel economy 

of both modes of operation would be harmonically averaged 50/50 and a utility factor 

would not be necessary.184

4. Low Powered Vehicles. 

Vehicles using the low powered vehicle provision in 40 CFR 86.115-78(b)(4) 

shall use the actual distance driven in calculating cycle specific utility factors. The 

coefficients used in determining UF shall be as follows in table VI.B.2-5 

 

182 65 FR 36990, June 12, 2000. 183 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) and 49 CFR 538.5 Minimum Driving Range. 184 49 U.S.C. 32905(b). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 140 of 339 

Table VI.B.2-5 

City/Highway Specific Utility 

Factor Coefficients

 City Hwy 

norm_dist 399 399 

C1 14.86 4.80 

C2 2.97 13.00 

C3 -84.05 -65.00 

C4 153.70 120.00 

C5 -43.59 -100.00 

C6 -96.94 31.00 

C7 14.47 

C8 91.70 

C9 -46.36 

Equation VI.B.2-5 

1

1 1

1

j k n

i

i ji

j i

d UF e C UF

ND −

= =

⎡ ⎤ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ =− ⎜ × ⎟− ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ∑ ∑

Where ND is the normalized distance (399), j is the coefficient index, k is the number of 

coefficients for city (9) and for highway (6), C are the coefficients listed in Table VI.B.2-

5, d is distance driven in each cycle or phase, i is a counter representing each cycle or 

phase, and n is the number of cycles or phases needed to reach the end-of-test criterion. 

The calculated cycle specific utility factors for low powered vehicles would be 

applied in the same manner as paragraph B.3, except that the utility factors would be 

calculated based on measured distance and not assigned based on phase or cycle distance. 

C. Comparable Class Categories 

EPCA requires that the label include the range of fuel economy of comparable 

vehicles of all manufacturers.185 EPA’s comparable class structure provides a basis for 

comparing a vehicle’s fuel economy to that of other vehicles in its class.186 The 

definitions of vehicle classes were last revised by EPA’s 2006 labeling final rule. That 

action finalized two specific changes to the vehicle class structure. Separate new classes 

were added for sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and minivans (these were previously 

included in the Special Purpose Vehicle category), and the weight limit for Small Pickup 

Trucks was increased from 4,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) to 6,000 

pounds GVWR. These were non-controversial changes that were generally seen as a 

move to keep the class structure as current as possible given the changing vehicle market. 

 

185 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C). 186 40 CFR 600.315-08. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 141 of 339 

The resulting structure is one that contains nine car categories, five truck categories, and 

a “special purpose vehicle” category. It should also be noted that the EPA-defined 

vehicle classes are used only to provide consumer information about fuel economy and 

serve no other regulatory purpose. 

EPA is proposing one modification to the class categories. Consistent with the 

distinction currently made between small and large pickup trucks, EPA is proposing to 

divide the SUV class into small and large SUVs. We do not believe that it is appropriate, 

for example, to include a Toyota RAV4 in the same class as a Toyota Sequoia, or a Ford 

Escape in the same class as a Ford Expedition. The single SUV category currently 

described in the regulations would be replaced by the two following proposed categories: 

• Small sport utility vehicles: Sport utility vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating less than 6,000 pounds. 

• Standard sport utility vehicles: Sport utility vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of 6,000 pounds up to 10,000 pounds. 

Although the standard pickup truck class only goes up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, SUVs 

between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds GVWR are defined as medium-duty passenger 

vehicles, and they will be subject to fuel economy labeling starting with the 2011 model 

year. EPA requests comment on whether this is an appropriate way to distinguish the 

SUV classes. 

Although EPA received many comments on the 2006 rule regarding the class 

structure, some of its inherent problems, and how people may or may not shop within 

classes, there were no specific suggestions on how to revise the structure to resolve the 

issues that were raised. We believe that with the refinement to the SUV category we are 

proposing, the comparable class structure would generally represent the physical 

distinctions between vehicle types offered in the fleet today. However, there may be 

other distinctions between vehicles not captured in these categories, such as the luxury 

vehicle segment. The DOE/EPA web site (www.fueleconomy.gov) incorporates vehicle 

cost into the sedan category, for example, dividing sedans into “family,” “upscale,” and 

“luxury.” EPA requests comment on incorporating such an approach into the comparable 

class categories, and specifically, how it might be done given the changing nature of 

vehicles and vehicle prices. We welcome interested parties to continue working with 

EPA in the future on how to ensure that the comparable classes are kept current with the 

dynamic vehicle fleet. If it becomes necessary in the future to further modify the 

comparable class structure, EPA would do so through a rulemaking. EPA requests 

general comments on the proposed modifications to comparable classes, and also 

welcomes comments on other possible ways to classify vehicles for comparison purposes. 

Comments should address how the classifications will be useful for the consumer who is 

comparison shopping. 

D. Using Smartphone QR Codes® to Link to Fuel Economy Information 

For all the label designs being considered, EPA is proposing that manufacturers 

place a QR Code on the label that will link the web browser of a properly configured 

smartphone to the mobile version of the EPA/DOE fuel economy information web site, or 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 142 of 339 

alternatively, to the vehicle-specific information located on the EPA/DOE website.187 

(Note that although the proposed Label 1 design incorporates a different website URL, 

the intent would remain the same: to use the QR Code to directly link the users 

smartphone to vehicle-specific information while providing additional tools for making 

vehicle comparisons, learning more about the vehicle, etc.) Many focus group 

participants expressed excitement and interest in the prospects of being able to access 

information in this way using their mobile devices, and EPA believes it is a potentially 

useful and valuable tool for consumers. 

QR Codes, like other two-dimensional bar codes, are simply used to store 

information. QR Codes were originally developed for use in tracking parts in vehicle 

manufacturing, and are now being used for other purposes, such as storing a web site 

URL into an encoded graphic that can be scanned. These codes – the use of which is 

growing in popularity in the U.S. – are two-dimensional black and white codes (like a bar 

code) that eliminate the need to type a web link into a mobile phone (an action that can be 

cumbersome and that many mobile users might prefer avoiding). Reading a QR Code 

requires that scanning software be installed on the mobile phone. Many smartphone 

manufacturers have begun to pre-install QR Code readers, but for those that do not, the 

readers are very easy to download, and many are available for free for nearly every type 

of mobile device. Once equipped with the correct scanning application, consumers can 

point and scan to instantly connect to information they actually want, versus information 

pushed to them. 

For example, scanning the proposed code would link the phone’s web browser to 

the mobile version of the DOE/EPA website. At that point the user could view additional 

information about the efficiency and environmental impacts of the vehicle, with available 

options such as creating customized estimates based on the user’s personal driving habits 

and distances. The user could also look up other vehicles and compare those to the 

vehicle they are viewing. 

EPA is proposing that the manufacturer place one of two QR Codes on the fuel 

economy label. These QR Codes would be determined based on an international standard 

that would be incorporated by reference in the regulations.188 The default option would 

be to insert the QR Code that would take the user’s web browser to the mobile version of 

the DOE/EPA fuel economy information web site. The QR Code for this site, including 

the text that EPA proposes accompanies it, would look like this: 

 

187 The term QR Code is a registered trademark of Denso Wave Incorporated, which owns the patent rights 

to the QR Code. However, the patent right is not exercised, allowing the specification of the QR Code to 

be disclosed and open for widespread use. For more information, see http://www.densowave.com/en/adcd/index.html. 188 International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 18004:2006, Information technology – 

automatic identification and data capture techniques – QR Code 2005 bar code symbology specification, 

August 31, 2006. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 143 of 339 

Smartphone Interactive 

Scan QR Code for more information about 

this vehicle, to get customized estimates, or 

to compare it with other vehicles. 

Alternatively and preferably, the manufacturer would use the QR Code that represents the 

URL where information for the specific labeled vehicle is available. However, this 

would depend upon resolving some specific data issues. For example, the manufacturer 

would have to know the vehicle-specific URL at the time the label is printed. This could 

require that EPA issue more frequent updates to the web site throughout the year, or that 

EPA assign a vehicle identification parameter early in the process. It may be the case that 

even if the vehicle is not yet included on the DOE/EPA web site that a URL, and thus a 

QR Code, could be easily assigned or determined. EPA is confident that we can work 

with DOE to resolve any potential implementation issues prior to the 2012 model year. 

 E. Fuel Economy Information in the context of the “Monroney” Sticker 

As noted in Section VIII, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) 

requires the affixing of a retail price sticker to the windshield or side window of new 

automobiles indicating the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price of the vehicle and other 

required vehicle information. AIDA is more commonly known as the Monroney Act 

(Senator Mike Monroney was the chief sponsor of AIDA) or Price Sticker Act. See 15 

U.S.C. 1231-1233. This sticker is commonly called the “Monroney” label. EPCA states 

that EPA “may allow” a manufacturer to comply with the EPCA labeling requirements 

by placing the fuel economy information on the label required by AIDA, a practice that 

has been used by most manufacturers. See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2). In fact, EPA 

regulations express a specific preference that manufacturers do this, “provided that the 

prominence and legibility of the fuel economy label is maintained.” See 40 CFR 

600.306-08(c). 

In the third phase of focus groups we had participants consider the placement of 

the fuel economy on the Monroney label, and whether participants had a specific 

preference for where to locate the fuel economy information. Although participants 

expressed a variety of opinions, a slight preference emerged for displaying the fuel 

economy information in the upper right portion of the Monroney label. 

The agencies recognize that EPCA does not require that the fuel economy 

information be on the Monroney label, and that there are instances when auto 

manufacturers may want to display the fuel economy information separately (e.g., if 

window space is limited on a small vehicle and/or the Monroney label size needs to be 

reduced). EPA does not intend to preclude the option of placing the new label in any 

appropriate and prominent location on the vehicle. However, the agencies request 

comment on whether we should require that the fuel economy information be placed in a 

specific location on the Monroney label (such as the upper right corner, or on the right 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 144 of 339 

side) as a condition of allowing the information to be included on that label.189 Although 

consumer preference for a specific location on the Monroney was vague, the agencies 

believe that consumers would be able to locate the new label information on the vehicle 

more easily if it appeared in a consistent location within the Monroney sticker. 

 The agencies also seek comment concerning the potential for the new label 

information to create confusion about other information found on the Monroney Label, in 

particular, the star safety ratings. Specifically, the agencies seek comment on whether 

consumers might interpret the large letter grade on Label 1 as applying to other aspects of 

the vehicle’s performance (such as safety) besides fuel economy and environmental 

impacts. To mitigate this concern, the agencies have created a prominent black border 

and title indicating the purpose of the information. Nevertheless the agencies seek 

comment on whether additional measures should be required under 32908(b) and (g) to 

address this potential confusion. 

The agencies also seek comment on whether the co-proposed labels, in particular 

Label 1 with its use of color and large font for the overall letter grade, might 

inadvertently distract consumers from the black-and-white star safety ratings. As one 

way of addressing this potential issue, NHTSA proposes to require under 49 CFR 

575.301 that the star safety ratings be located as close as physically possible to the new 

fuel economy and environmental label to help ensure that the star safety ratings do not 

get “lost” on the Monroney Label. Similarly, the agencies seek comment on whether 

their regulations for the new fuel economy and environmental label should require that it 

be located as close as physically possible to the star safety ratings. 

Another way of addressing this potential issue is by re-visiting the minimum size 

requirements for the safety rating label and the font of information on it. In a final rule190

implementing the requirement in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) for placing safety rating 

information on the Monroney vehicle price label, the agency interpreted that Act’s 

specification of a minimum size for the label as indicating the agency did not have any 

discretion regarding minimum size, instead of interpreting the specification as merely 

establishing a floor on the discretion of the agency to specify a minimum size. In 

comments made in response to a subsequent proposal191 to place an overall safety rating 

on the safety rating label, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety questioned that 

interpretation. In a recent meeting with Bosch, representatives of that company also 

questioned that interpretation. In light of the issues in this rulemaking and those 

questions, the agency is re-examining that interpretation. 

 

189 Based on 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2), EPA currently conditions placement of the fuel economy label in the 

Monroney label on a general requirement that the prominence and legibility of the label be maintained. 

EPA is inviting comment on expanding the conditions for placement in the Monroney label through 

addition of more specific requirements related to the location of the fuel economy label in the Monroney 

label. 

190 71 FR 53572, 53576, September 12, 2006. 191 75 FR 10740, March 9, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 145 of 339 

F. Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections 

EPA is also proposing a number of non-controversial amendments and corrections 

to the existing regulations. 

First, we are making a number of corrections to the recently finalized regulations 

for controlling automobile greenhouse gas emissions.192 These changes include 

correcting typographical errors, correcting some regulatory references, and adding some 

simple clarifications. 

Second, we are correcting an oversight from the 2006 labeling rule regarding the 

applicability of testing requirements to independent commercial importers (ICIs). 

Currently several vehicle categories (dedicated alternative fuel, dual fuel while operating 

on alternative fuel, and MDPVs) are exempted from having to perform full 5-cycle fuel 

economy testing. These categories are allowed to use the “derived 5-cycle” method, 

whereas other vehicles must use data from all five test cycles at certification to perform 

an evaluation that determines whether the test group can use the derived 5-cycle method 

or whether they must complete full 5-cycle testing. The reason for exempting these 

vehicles is that the evaluation required at certification requires the use of all 5 cycles as 

run for emissions certification, but these categories are not subject to the SFTP 

requirements, and thus such vehicles do not perform two of the five test procedures (the 

US06 high speed/acceleration test and the SC03 air conditioning test). Thus when EPA 

finalized the 2006 label rule we recognized that these categories would not have the data 

required to perform the certification evaluation, and we decided to exempt them from five 

cycle testing. However, this same exemption should have been applied to ICIs. Like the 

vehicle categories noted above, vehicles imported by ICIs are not required to perform the 

SFTP emission tests, and thus also won’t have the necessary data to perform the 5-cycle 

certification evaluation. Therefore, we are proposing to extend the allowance to use the 

derived 5-cycle method to ICIs. 

Third, we are taking steps to further clean up the regulatory language. This 

involves removing several sections that apply only for model years before 2008 and 

moving or combining several of the remaining sections to provide a clearer organization. 

We are also being more careful with regulatory references pointing to other sections 

within 40 CFR part 600 and to sections in 40 CFR part 86. This largely addresses the 

concern that regulatory sections numbered for certain model years can cause references to 

be incorrect or misleading over time. We are proposing to rely on the rounding 

convention as specified for engine testing in 40 CFR part 1065. Similarly, we are 

proposing to rely on the hearing procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068. These 

changes allow us to centralize provisions that have general applicability to support our 

effort to have a consistent approach across programs. The proposed regulations also 

include a streamlined set of references to outside standards (such as SAE standards). For 

the final rule, we also intend to include the most recent updates for the ASTM standards 

we reference in part 600. We are not intending to make any substantive changes to the 

regulatory provisions affected by these administrative changes and are not reopening the 

 

192 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 146 of 339 

rule for any of those provisions. Nevertheless, we request comment on these changes 

and on any further steps that would be appropriate for maintaining clear and concise 

regulatory provisions. 

VII. Projected Impacts of the Proposed Requirements 

Vehicle manufacturers have been required to provide fuel economy labels on 

vehicles since 1977. The costs and benefits of label revisions would be those associated 

with changes to the current label, not the costs and benefits associated with production of 

the label itself. The change in cost from this proposed rule comes in the physical 

revisions to the label itself and the possible efficiencies achieved by meeting EPCA and 

EISA labeling requirements in one label, as well as proposed modified vehicle testing 

procedures, and any revisions of currently provided information that consumers find 

useful in informing their purchase decisions. The benefits of the rule come from 

providing labels for mass-market advanced technology vehicles for the first time, and 

from any improvements in the effectiveness of labels for conventional vehicles in 

providing accurate and useful consumer information on fuel consumption and 

environmental performance. 

A. Costs Associated with this Rule 

Testing requirements for vehicles are not new. Advanced technology and 

alternative fuel vehicles have been required to undergo testing requirements in the past. 

For advanced technology vehicles, though, the test procedures have not previously been 

standardized; they have been handled on a case-by-case basis. Because EPA expects 

more advanced technology vehicles to come to market, we propose to codify testing 

procedures in a public process and are requesting comment on them. See section VI of 

this preamble. The testing costs described here therefore are not really new costs for 

manufacturers, since they would have to test the vehicles even in the absence of this rule. 

The cost estimates are provided here because they have previously not been presented, 

and EPA seeks comment on the analysis of costs presented here. 

 The analysis of the projected costs of this rule follows conceptually the approach 

in the 2006 (“five-cycle”) fuel economy labeling rule. Increased on-going operations 

and maintenance (O&M) costs and labor hours result from the costs of printing the labels 

and increases in testing costs for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). 

We also allow for the costs of increased facility capacity to accommodate the increased 

testing time involved for these two categories of vehicles. Startup costs are treated as 

capital costs, and are amortized over ten years at 7% interest. Startup costs for this rule 

include some one-time graphic design work for each manufacturer subject to the rule and 

updating information systems and testing equipment for those manufacturers subject to 

new testing. As an aid to the analysis and to help articulate the range of uncertainty, we 

include both low and high cost estimates for each of these cost and labor hour elements. 

The cost estimates are $649,000 per year for the low estimate, and $2.8 million per year 

for the high estimate. For details of this analysis, see the “Draft Supporting Statement for 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 147 of 339 

Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles (Proposed 

Rule)”, in the docket.193 

1. Operations and Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours

 a. New Testing Requirements for Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid 

Electric Vehicles 

i. Testing requirements for Electric Vehicles 

 As explained in Section VI of this Preamble, EPA currently has no federal test 

procedure for measuring fuel economy for electric vehicles (EVs). To date, EPA has 

performed some fuel economy testing connected with certification applications for 

electric vehicles using the procedures developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE), specifically SAE J1634, as cancelled in October 2002. This proposal spells out 

EV testing requirements that are similar to SAE J1634, as cancelled in October 2002, and 

allows continued use of that procedure. 

 In estimating the costs of this action, there is no clear baseline cost that 

manufacturers of EVs would have incurred in satisfying federal requirements, because 

existing fuel economy measurements are entirely specified in terms of exhaust and 

greenhouse gas emissions. For purposes of the analysis, we assume these EV costs are 

entirely new costs rather than increments to pre-existing costs. Here and in the facility 

costs section, this also means we assume no carry-over applications for EVs. Both these 

assumptions are more likely to lead to an overstatement of costs than an understatement. 

 In 2004 the Federal Trade Commission promulgated a rule requiring “alternative 

fueled vehicles” to include a consumer label indicating their estimated cruising ranges 

(69 FR 26926, April 9, 2004; 16 CFR part 309, subpart C). The covered vehicles include 

EVs but not plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Estimated cruising range for an 

EV is the range determined according to SAE J1634 (16 CFR 309.22(a)(2)). 

Consequently, EV manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States have already been 

subject to the same SAE J1634 testing requirements allowed in this rulemaking for 

several years. However, for purposes of the analysis below we treat the costs of 

compliance for manufacturers subject to the proposed rule as new costs in order to insure 

that they are fully considered in this rulemaking, 

 The salient feature of SAE J1634 for cost purposes is that it requires, similar to a 

conventional vehicle, the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or City Test), preceded by vehicle 

preparation; this is followed by the Highway Test (HFET). The off-cycle tests (USO6, 

SCO3, cold FTP) are optional under EPA’s proposal. Furthermore, cruising range 

determination requires that the FTP be repeated until the battery system is no longer able 

 

193 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “Draft Supporting 

Statement for Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles (Proposed Rule), 

EPA ICR 2392.01.” Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division and Assessment and Standards 

Division, July, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 148 of 339 

to maintain the FTP speed tolerances; the FTP in question is the full four-phase FTP, 

repeated as cold and hot start “UDDS” or “LA-4” cycles until that point is reached. 

Preparation costs are estimated to be $3,163 and 30 hours per vehicle, per 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 0783.54 (OMB 2060-0104), the certification ICR 

for conventional vehicles. Preparation includes several coast downs, a UDDS, and a soak 

period. The low and high EV test distances for FTP and HFET tests are estimated as 50 to 

250 miles. For purposes of this estimate, the cost of an FTP/HFET pair is $1,860, 

allocated 70% to the FTP and 30% to the HFET and incremented either by 50 or 250 

divided by 7.45 (the distance of a normal FTP), or by 50 or 250 divided by 10.3 (the 

distance of the normal HFET). These increases are applied to an estimated five to eight 

EV families in the years through MY2013. Labor hours, estimated at 30 hours per 

FTP/HFET pair, are allocated and incremented in a similar manner. The bottom line is a 

cost between $75,300 and $486,784, and 1,073 to 7,625 hours, per year for the EV 

industry. 

ii. Testing Requirements for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles 

 As explained in Section VI, the proposed EPA test procedure for PHEVs is an 

extension of the existing test procedure for hybrid vehicles. Off-cycle tests are already 

required for test groups that do not meet the “litmus test;” others would use the derived 

five-cycle adjustment. Hybrid vehicles already do FTP and HFET tests for fuel economy 

determination. The new FTP procedure would essentially run repeated FTPs until the 

charge is depleted. This is the “charge-depleting” operation, when the vehicle is mainly 

running on its battery. The battery would then be recharged, and a single additional fourphase FTP would be conducted in what is denominated as the “charge-sustain” operation. 

Following this, the vehicle will be recharged, if necessary, by running any appropriate 

test cycle followed by HFET cycles in charge-depleting operation, followed by a cycle in 

charge-sustain operation. 

 For purposes of this cost analysis, the charge-sustain FTP and HFET cycles along 

with potential other cycles mandated by emissions and fuel economy testing requirements 

are considered to be continuations of existing requirements. The cost increment due to 

this proposal consequently derives entirely from the increased testing time in depleting 

mode. The duration of the depleting modes is estimated as 7.45 to 50 miles over the 

repeated 7.45 mile FTP or 10.3 mile HFET test cycles. These together, applied to 5 to 8 

families with no carryovers, add an estimated $8,528 to $80,564 in operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs and 138 to 923 labor hours to existing hybrid testing costs. 

 b. Printing Costs for New Labels 

The primary variable cost for the new label design is the difference in cost 

between black-and-white and color printing. To estimate this cost difference, the 

agencies note two sources. First, in 2007 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

examined the effects of requiring an environmental label that included color printing. It 

estimated the combined capital and operating costs of color labels to be as low as $0.02 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 149 of 339 

per vehicle for large manufacturers;194 CARB expected small-scale manufacturers to 

switch to pre-printed color labels at an incremental cost of $0.05 per label, for a 4-by-6-

inch label. Secondly, in 2006 Hewlett-Packard estimated the per-page cost of color 

printing on its HP Color LaserJet 4700n printer as $0.09 per letter-sized page, and blackand-white printing on a dedicated black-and-white printer as $0.015, for a cost difference 

of $0.075 per page.195 

The existing fuel economy label measures 4.5 by 7 inches, slightly larger than the 

CARB label but about 1/3 the size of a standard page. For the cost estimates developed 

here, the agencies consider a low estimate of $0.03 per label in additional printing costs 

(based on the CARB label, adjusted for size), and a high estimate of $0.08 per label 

(based on the HP estimate, which may overestimate the cost based on page size). For the 

number of labels, we estimate the subject fleet from the April 20, 2010, U.S. Department 

of Transportation’s Summary of Fuel Economy Performance,196 taking MY2009’s 9.83 

million as the low and MY2005’s 15.9 million as the high estimate. This yields a new 

printing cost of $294,690 to $1,274,634 per year. 

The O&M costs and labor hours discussed above can be summarized as follows: 

 

194 State of California, Air Resources Board. “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: 

Proposed Amendments to the Smog Index Vehicle Emissions Label,” May 4, 2007, 

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/arb/2007-06-21_isor.pdf , (last accessed May 3, 2010). 195 Hewlett-Packard, “Head to head comparison: color versus black-and-white printing,” 

http://www.officeproductnews.net/files/hpc2447wpcolorvsbwgov.pdf, (last accessed May 4, 2010). 196 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Summary of 

Fuel Economy Performance,” 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_Performance_Report_April_2010.pdf , 

accessed June 17, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 150 of 339 

2. Facility Costs

In addition to new equipment (treated as a startup cost, below), the new testing 

requirements for EVs and PHEVs will in theory require expanded testing facilities for 

those manufacturers choosing to produce and sell them in the U.S. Because the cost of 

new facility capacity is highly dependent on manufacturer-specific factors (the costs of 

capital, the availability of land, the structure of work shifts, the existing excess capacity, 

etc.), we use the approximation of unitizing increased test costs by assuming that a 

facility capable of performing 750 FTP/HFET pairs would cost $4 million. Here, the new 

tests are deemed to require these facilities in proportion to the increases in test time, and 

the costs are then annualized over ten years and amortized at 7% interest compounded 

monthly. This assumption is more likely to produce an overestimate of costs rather than 

an underestimate, since it does not attempt to account for the current excess capacity that 

exists in manufacturers’ current test facilities. We assume that there is no excess capacity 

in our analysis. Note that other features of the EV and PHEV test cycles, such as 

recharging times, have been harmonized with existing test protocols. Furthermore, 

consistent with other information burden analyses for the emissions and fuel economy 

programs, we consider these as ongoing rather than startup costs (i.e., as the facilities 

depreciate they are continually being replaced), another conservative assumption. 

Applying these costs to a low and high estimate of 5 to 8 EV families and 5 to 8 PHEV 

families per year yields an annualized facilities cost between $25,278 and $210,779 per 

year. 

Facility costs can be summarized as in Table VII.A.2-1: 

Table VII.A.1-1 

Testing Costs (Labor And O&M Costs For Running The Tests) 

Vehicle 

Type/Test Cycle 

Increase In Number of Tests Increase in Hours 

Min Tests 

Min Cost 

Increase Max Tests 

Max Cost 

Increase Min Max 

EV 

Prep 5.0 $18,065 8.0 $28,904 150 240 

FTP 5.0 $43,691 8.0 $349,530 705 5,638

HFET 5.0 $13,544 8.0 $108,350 218 1,748

EV Total $75,300 $486,784 1,073 7,625

PHEV 

FTP 5.0 $6,510 8.0 $50,563 105 705 

HFET 5.0 $2,018 8.0 $30,001 33 218 

PHEV Total $8,528 $80,564 138 923 

Total $83,828 $567,348 1,211 8,548

PRINTING COSTS 

 Number Vehicles Min@$0.03 Number Vehicles Max@$0.08 

Color Labels 9, 832,000 $294,690 15,932,920 $1,274,634 

 

TOTAL O&M $378,518 $1,841,981 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 151 of 339 

Table VII.A.2-1 

Increase In Test Facilities

Undepreciated capital costs Minimum Maximum 

EV test distance increase $154,210 $1,233,683 

PHEV test distance increase $22,977 $246,737 

Total $177,188 $1,480,420 

Amortized, 10yrs @ 7 % $25,278 $210,779 

3. Startup Costs

 Startup costs are counted as one-time costs that are amortized or discounted at an 

interest rate of 7% over ten years. 

 a. Updating Information Systems and Testing Equipment 

 The estimate includes the cost of upgrading information systems for the estimated 

8 to 10 manufacturers who will need to comply with the new EV and PHEV testing 

requirements, such as recording multiple tests, recording battery charge data, and 

communicating the resulting data to the information system that gets it to EPA and the 

label. Both low and high estimates use 4 weeks for four IT staff for analysis and code, 

and 4 weeks for two IT staff for testing, at $100 per hour, for each manufacturer, 

resulting in an industry cost of $768,000 to $960,000. In addition, each manufacturer 

who has not previously produced hybrid-electric vehicles is assumed to need new testing 

equipment costing $25,000 for an ammeter and $50,000 for voltage stabilizers; we 

estimate that 5-8 manufacturers will fall in this category. 

 b. Label Redesign 

 The proposed label designs are presented in Section III. The changes being 

proposed in this rule would not affect either the existence or size of the label. Auto 

companies currently have significant flexibility in whether fuel economy label should be 

a stand-alone label or included in the “Monroney label” (which provides information on 

the price and options included for a specific vehicle), or where it is placed on the 

Monroney label. The agencies are not proposing any changes to this flexibility. The 

agencies estimate 16 to 24 hours at $100 per hour for this work, assuming at this time that 

no specific location or size within the Monroney label is required. This cost is applied to 

the universe of separate manufacturer entities subject to the rule. Many specific 

automotive brands are parts of marketing groups or are owned and managed by other, 

parent companies. Allowing for these relationships, the best guess is that the rule would 

apply to 24 manufacturers and 11 independent commercial importers (ICIs) importing 

nonconforming vehicles into the U.S. for sale. Applied to 35 companies, then, the label 

redesign cost is estimated to be $56,000 to $84,000. 

 

c. Annualized Startup Costs 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 152 of 339 

Total startup costs are between $1.2 and 1.6 million. When annualized and 

subjected to 7% loan repayment/discounting, the startup costs total $170,711 to $234,069 

per year. These are summarized in Table VII.A.3-1: 

Table VII.A.3-1 

Startup Costs 

 Item 

Cost 

Minimum Maximum 

Updating Information systems $768,000 $960,000 

Ammeter/stabilizer $375,000 $600,000 

Label redesign $56,000 $84,000 

TOTAL $1,199,000 $1,644,000 

Amortized, 10 years at 7% $170,711 $234,069 

4. Cost Summary

Table VII.A.4-1 summarizes the costs presented here. The total costs of this rule, 

excluding labor, are estimated to be about $575,000 to $2,287,000 per year. Adding the 

cost of labor (estimated to be $61.49 per hour overall) to the above estimates brings the 

total cost to $648,952 to $2,812,465. Note that startup capital is not budgeted as labor. 

EPA and NHTSA request comment on the costs estimates, including any omitted costs 

and any other information regarding the costs of these requirements. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 153 of 339 

Table VII.A.4-1 

Total Annual Cost and Hours Increase 

COST BURDEN 

 Min Max 

O&M: testing and label $378,518 $1,841,981 

Facility Capital $25,278 $210,779 

Startup: one-time IT, label 

redesign, and reg familiarization, 

10 yrs 7% $170,711 $234,069 

Total $574,507 $2,286,829 

 

HOURS BURDEN 

 Min Max 

O&M: testing and label 1,211 8,548 

Facility Capital 0 0 

Total 1,211 8,548 

Labor Cost $74,446 $525,635 

Total Costs, Including Labor $648,952 $2,812,465 

B. Impact of Proposing One Label to Meet EPCA/EISA 

As discussed in Section I.C., EPCA and EISA create similar but not identical 

requirements for labeling vehicles. EPA conducts a labeling program under EPCA, and 

NHTSA is required to conduct a labeling program under EISA, in consultation with EPA. 

While the agencies could require that manufacturers produce two separate labels to meet 

the requirements of the statutes, much of the information on the two labels would be 

duplicative. In addition, two different fuel economy labels might confuse vehicle 

purchasers, frustrating the purpose of providing fuel economy information to purchasers. 

Requiring that auto makers put two fuel economy labels on vehicles would also crowd 

the limited labeling space on vehicles. For these reasons, EPA and NHTSA are 

proposing to combine both the EPCA and the EISA requirements into one label. 

Because NHTSA’s labeling under EISA is a new requirement that has not 

previously been implemented, there is no cost reduction associated with the proposal to 

use a joint label. The use of the joint label avoids a cost increase that would result from 

two separate labels. EPA and NHTSA are not including this cost saving in the cost 

analysis because we believe that the benefits of coordinating labeling requirements 

outweigh any possible disadvantages. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 154 of 339 

C. Benefits of Label Changes 

The benefits of this rule would come from improved provision of information to 

vehicle buyers, and more informed consumer decisions resulting from the changes. 

These benefits are difficult to estimate. Doing so would require predictions of changes in 

consumer behavior as a result of the label modifications. The internet survey discussed 

in Section IV.A.2 is intended to provide some insights into the comprehensibility and 

usefulness of the labels, but the results are not available at this time. We caution that 

insights into comprehensibility and usefulness may be limited in predicting changes in 

consumer behavior due to the proposed label change. 

 Improved fuel economy reduces costs of driving a mile, but the technology to 

improve fuel economy may increase the cost of a vehicle. Evaluating this tradeoff 

requires comparing future fuel savings based on expectations of future fuel prices and 

driving patterns with known and immediate increases in vehicle purchase price. Some 

evidence suggests that consumers may not accurately compare future fuel savings with 

the up-front costs of fuel-saving technology when buying vehicles.197 As a result, 

consumers may buy less or more fuel-saving technology than is financially sensible for 

them to buy. This problem may be compounded by the presence of miles per gallon 

(MPG) as a primary metric for fuel economy comparison.198 As discussed in Section 

II.A.2, consumers can save much more fuel by choosing a 1-MPG improvement in fuel 

economy for a low-MPG vehicle than by choosing a 1-MPG improvement for a highMPG vehicle. However, research on the “MPG illusion” finds that consumers expect a 1-

MPG improvement to produce the same fuel savings regardless of the efficiency of a 

vehicle.199 Thus, the tendency of consumers to use MPG as a primary metric for fuel 

economy increases the difficulty of estimating the fuel savings resulting from increased 

fuel economy. As a result, consumers may not be able to find the most cost-effective 

amount of fuel economy for their driving habits. For gasoline vehicles, new metrics on 

the label, such as gallons per hundred miles, fuel savings over 5 years, or environmental 

metrics, may make it easier for consumers to identify the fuel savings they are likely to 

receive from a vehicle, and therefore to judge better between vehicles with different fuel 

savings, costs, and environmental impacts. 

Finding the most cost-effective vehicle may be even more confusing with the 

advent of advanced technology vehicles such as EVs or PHEVs. Most consumers are not 

accustomed to shopping for vehicles that use energy sources other than gasoline. In 

addition, the cost effectiveness of different technologies depends on a person’s driving 

patterns. A person with a short commute may have lower per-mile costs with a vehicle 

with some all-electric range, but someone with a long commute may have higher per-mile 

costs or insufficient range with such a vehicle and may want to consider different 

technologies. For advanced technology vehicles, the label can help vehicle shoppers to 

 

197 Turrentine, Thomas S., and Kenneth S. Kurani, “Car buyers and fuel economy?” Energy Policy 35 

(2007): 1213-1223. 198 Larrick, Richard P., and Jack B. Soll, “The MPG Illusion.” Science 320 (5883) (June 20, 2008): 1593-

94. 

199 Ibid. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 155 of 339 

understand the new technologies, and it can present metrics that allow consumers to make 

useful comparisons across different vehicle technologies. 

EPA and NHTSA request comment on the benefits described here, and on any 

additional benefits. 

D. Summary 

The primary benefits associated with this proposed rule are associated with 

improved consumer decision-making resulting from improved presentation of 

information. At this time, EPA and NHTSA do not have data to quantify these impacts. 

The primary costs associated with this proposed rule come from revisions to the 

fuel economy label and additional testing procedures. These costs are estimated to be 

$649,000 – $2.8 million per year. 

EPA and NHTSA request comment on this assessment of the benefits and costs. 

VIII. Agencies’ Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Relationship of EPA’s Proposed Requirements With Other Statutes 

and Regulations 

1. Automobile Disclosure Act

 The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) requires the affixing of a 

retail price sticker to the windshield or side window of new automobiles indicating the 

Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, the “sticker price.”200 Additional information, 

such as a list of any optional equipment offered or transportation charges, is also 

required. The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered prior to sale to a 

consumer. 

Under EPCA, EPA may allow manufacturers of new automobiles to comply with 

the EPCA labeling requirements by placing the fuel economy information on the label 

required by AIDA .201 Normally, the price sticker label and EPA label are combined as 

one large label. Failure to maintain the EPA label on the vehicle is considered a violation 

of AIDA. 

2. Internal Revenue Code

EPCA requires “Gas Guzzler” tax information to be included on the fuel economy 

label, under 26 U.S.C. 4064(c)(1). The Internal Revenue code contains the provisions 

 

200 More commonly known as the Monroney Act (Senator Mike Monroney was the chief sponsor of the 

Act) or Price Sticker Act. See 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233. 

201 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 156 of 339 

governing the administration of the Gas Guzzler Tax. It contains the table of applicable 

taxes and defines which vehicles are subject to the taxes. The IRS code specifies that the 

fuel economy to be used to assess the amount of tax will be the combined city and 

highway fuel economy as determined by using the procedures in place in 1975, or 

procedures that give comparable results (similar to EPCA's requirements for determining 

CAFE for passenger automobiles). This proposal would not impact these provisions. 

3. Clean Air Act

EPCA states that fuel economy tests shall, to the extent practicable, be carried out 

with the emissions tests required under Section 206 of the Clean Air Act.202 EPA is not 

proposing additional emissions tests. 

4. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising

for New Vehicles

 In the mid-1970's when EPCA was passed, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “took 

note of the dramatic increase in the number of fuel economy claims then being made and 

of the proliferation of test procedures then being used as the basis for such claims.”203 

They responded by promulgating regulations in 16 CFR part 259 entitled “Guide 

Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Vehicles” (“Fuel Guide”). The Fuel 

Guide, adopted in 1975 and subsequently revised twice, provides guidance to automobile 

manufacturers to prevent deceptive advertising and to facilitate the use of fuel economy 

information in advertising. The Fuel Guide advises vehicle manufacturers and dealers 

how to disclose the established fuel economy of a vehicle, as determined by the 

Environmental Protection Agency's rules pursuant to the Automobile Information 

Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 2996), in advertisements that make representations regarding 

the fuel economy of a new vehicle.204 The disclosure is tied to the claim made in the 

advertisement. If both city and highway fuel economy claims are made, both city and 

highway EPA figures should be disclosed. A claim regarding either city or highway fuel 

economy should be accompanied by the corresponding EPA figure. A general fuel 

economy claim would trigger disclosure of the EPA city figure, although the advertiser 

would be free to state the highway figure as well. The authority for the Fuel Guide is tied 

to the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41-58) which, briefly stated, makes it 

illegal for one to engage in “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

5. California Environmental Performance Label

 California requires each new and used vehicle offered for sale in the state to affix 

a “Smog Index Number” and “Global Warming Index” decal to the car window which 

indicates the pollution standard that applies to that particular car, and its exhaust 

 

202 49 U.S.C. 32904(c). 203 40 FR 42003, Sept. 10, 1975. 204 43 FR 55747, Nov. 29, 1978; and 60 FR 56230, Nov. 8, 1995. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 157 of 339 

emissions.205 This proposal would not impact California’s regulations. The Global 

Warming index on California’s label includes emissions from fuel production 

(http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/images/ep_label_large.jpg). 

B. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (NHTSA only)

 Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

a "significant regulatory action” because the action raises novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA and NHTSA submitted this action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under E.O. 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been documented as OMB requests in the docket for this action. 

 NHTSA is also subject to the Department of Transportation’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures. This proposed rule is also significant within the meaning of the DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. E.O. 12866 also requires NHTSA to submit this 

action to OMB for review and document any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations 

 In addition, EPA and NHTSA both prepared an analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. This analysis is available in Section VII of this 

document. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

 The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2239.01. Since 

this is a joint proposal, the burden associated with these information collection 

requirements could be attributed to either agency. However, since a significant portion of 

the burden result from new EPA testing requirements, EPA has agreed to assume 

responsibility for the complete paperwork burden. Both agencies will consider the 

comments submitted regarding these potential costs as part of their decision in the final 

rule.

The information being collected is used by EPA to calculate the fuel economy 

estimates that appear on new automobile, light truck and medium-duty passenger vehicle 

sticker labels. EPA currently collects this information annually as part of its vehicle 

certification and fuel economy program, and will continue to do so. This proposed rule 

changes some of the content of the information submitted. Responses to this information 

collection are mandatory to obtain the benefit of vehicle certification under Title II of the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) and as required under Title III of the Motor 

 

205 SB 2050 (Presley), Chapter 1192, Statutes of 1994, and AB 1229 (2005). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 158 of 339 

Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). Information 

submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential until the specific vehicle to which it 

pertains is available for purchase. After vehicles are available for purchase, most 

information associated with the manufacturer’s application is available to the public. 

Under section 208 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7542(c)), all information, other than 

trade secret processes or methods, must be publicly available. Proprietary information is 

granted confidentiality in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA’s Office of General 

Counsel. 

The projected yearly increased cost within the three-year horizon of the pending 

information collection request is $2,812,000 including $2,286,000 in operations and 

maintenance costs and $526,000 in labor costs. The estimated number of likely 

respondent manufacturers is 35. Responses are submitted annually by engine family, with 

the number of responses per respondent varying widely depending on the number of 

engine families being certified. Under the current fuel economy information 

authorization, an average of 12.2 responses a year are approved for each of 33 

respondents requiring 451.2 hours per response and 80 hours of recordkeeping at a total 

cost of $10,012 per response for an industry total of 184,127 hours and $4,274,932 

million annually, including capital and operations and maintenance costs. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, 

a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The 

OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

 To comment on the EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA 

has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA 

and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit 

comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [Insert date of publication in the 

Federal Register.], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 

receives it by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.]. The 

final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires agencies to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agencies certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 159 of 339 

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, a 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) by category of business using North America Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 

any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

Table VIII.B.3-1 provides an overview of the primary SBA small business 

categories included in the light-duty vehicle sector that are subject to the proposed rule: 

Table VIII.B.3-1 Primary SBA Small Business Categories in the Light-Duty Vehicle 

Sector

Industry 

Defined as small 

entity by SBA if less 

than or equal to: 

NAICS Codesa

 

Light-duty vehicles:

- vehicle manufacturers

- independent commercial importers

- automobile dealers

- stretch limousine manufacturers and 

hearse manufacturers

1,000 employees

$7 million annual sales

$23 million annual sales

100 employees

$29 million annual sales

1,000 employees

336111

811111, 811112, 811198

441120

423110

441110

336211

Notes: 

a North American Industrial Classification System

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this 

proposed rule cover several types of small businesses including vehicle manufacturers, 

automobile dealers, limousine and hearse manufacturers, and independent commercial 

importers (ICIs). ICIs are companies that import used vehicles into the U.S. that must be 

certified for emissions compliance and labeled for fuel economy purposes. Small 

governmental jurisdictions and small organizations as described above will not be 

impacted. We have determined that the estimated effect of the proposed rule is to impact 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 160 of 339 

1 small business vehicle manufacturer and 11 ICIs who currently certify vehicles with 

costs less than one percent of revenues. These 12 companies represent all of the small 

businesses impacted by the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations will have no 

new impacts on small business automobile dealers or small business limousine and 

hearse manufacturers. An analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule on small 

businesses has been prepared and placed in the docket for this rulemaking.206

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, we nonetheless have tried to reduce the impact of this rule on 

small entities. EPA is proposing to reduce the testing burden on ICIs that would be 

needed for the fuel economy label. Under the proposal, ICIs would be allowed to test 

over two driving cycles when determining the fuel economy estimate for the fuel 

economy label instead of testing over five driving cycles as required for vehicle 

manufacturers. 

Both agencies continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome comments on the small business analysis and other 

issues related to impacts on small businesses. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

 This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million (adjusted for inflation) or more for State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This rule contains no 

federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title 

II of the UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental 

entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The 

proposed rule only affects vehicle manufacturers and the agencies estimate annual costs of 

less than $100 million (adjusted for inflation). EPA and NHTSA believe that the proposal 

represents the least costly, most cost-effective approach to achieve the statutory 

requirements of the rule. The agencies’ estimated costs are provided in section VI. Thus, 

this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

 This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. As noted above, the proposed rule only affects vehicle manufacturers. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

 This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 

States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rulemaking would apply to 

manufacturers of motor vehicles and not to state or local governments. Thus, Executive 

 

206 “Screening Analysis: Small Business Impacts from Revisions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label,” 

EPA report, August 12, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 161 of 339 

Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action, EPA and NHTSA did consult with representatives of state 

governments in developing this action. 

 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the agencies’ policy to 

promote communications between Federal, State and local governments, the agencies 

specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials. 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments

 This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 

13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed rule would be implemented at 

the Federal level and imposes compliance costs only on vehicle manufacturers. Tribal 

governments would be affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated 

vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The agencies 

specifically solicit additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. 

7. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health and Safety Risks

 EPA and NHTSA interpret E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such 

that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The proposed regulations do 

not require manufacturers to improve or otherwise change the fuel economy of their 

vehicles. The purpose of this proposed regulation is to provide consumers with better 

information on which to base their vehicle purchasing decisions. Therefore, we have 

concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. 

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 

are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 162 of 339 

and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs the agencies to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

 EPA’s portion of this proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA 

proposes to use elements of testing standards developed with the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE). Where possible, EPA proposes to incorporate by reference portions of 

SAEJ1711, SAE J2841, and SAE J1634. At the time of this proposal, all the above SAE 

documents are either open for update or in the process of balloting prior to publishing. 

SAE reference documents can be obtained at www.SAE.org. In the absence of final 

published reference documents, EPA is proposing procedures that may differ from final 

SAE procedures. Also, differences between EPA proposed procedures and final SAE 

procedures may be due to statutory or existing regulatory EPA requirements, worst case 

emissions testing requirements by EPA, and the need for EPA to address policy concerns 

and concerns of manufacturers not involved in developing SAE procedures. 

 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus 

standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

 Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part 

of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. 

 The agencies have determined that this proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. The proposed regulations do not require 

manufacturers to improve or otherwise change the emissions control or fuel economy of 

their vehicles. The purpose of this proposed regulation is to provide consumers with 

better information on which to base their vehicle purchasing decisions. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 85 

Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 86 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 163 of 339 

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Labeling, 

Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 600 

Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel economy, Labeling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 575 

Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Fuel economy, Motor 

vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 164 of 339 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Chapter I 

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes 

to amend parts 85, 86 and 600 of title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 85—CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES 

1. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart T—[Amended] 

2. Section 85.1902 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 85.1902 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) A defect in the design, materials, or workmanship in one or more emissions control or 

emission-related parts, components, systems, software or elements of design which must 

function properly to ensure continued compliance with vehicle greenhouse gas emission 

requirements, including compliance with CO2, CH4, N2O, and carbon-related exhaust 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 165 of 339 

emission standards; 

* * * * * 

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY 

VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

3. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 

Subpart B – [Amended] 

4. Section 86.165-12 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 86.165-12 Air conditioning idle test procedure. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) Measure and record the continuous CO2 concentration for 600 seconds. Measure the 

CO2concentration continuously using raw or dilute sampling procedures. Multiply this 

concentration by the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate at the emission sampling 

location to determine the CO2 flow rate. Calculate the CO2 cumulative flow rate 

continuously over the test interval. This cumulative value is the total mass of the emitted 

CO2. Alternatively, CO2 may be measured and recorded using a constant velocity 

sampling system as described in §§ 86.106-96(a)(2) and 86.109-94. 

* * * * * 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 166 of 339 

Subpart S — [Amended] 

5. Section 86.1818-12 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) and revising paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1818-12 Greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Manufacturer has the meaning given by the Department of Transportation at 49 CFR 

531.4. 

(c) * * * 

(1) For a given individual model year's production of passenger automobiles and light 

trucks, manufacturers must comply with a full useful life fleet average CO2 standard 

calculated according to the provisions of this paragraph (c). Manufacturers must calculate 

separate full useful life fleet average CO2 standards for their passenger automobile and 

light truck fleets, as those terms are defined in this section. Each manufacturer's fleet 

average CO2 standards determined in this paragraph (c) shall be expressed in whole 

grams per mile, in the model year specified as applicable. Manufacturers eligible for and 

choosing to participate in the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards for 

qualifying manufacturers specified in paragraph (e) of this section shall not include 

vehicles subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards in the 

calculations of their primary passenger automobile or light truck standards determined in 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 167 of 339 

this paragraph (c). Manufacturers shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable 

standards according to the provisions of § 86.1865–12. 

 * * * * * 

(d) In-use CO2 exhaust emission standards. The in-use exhaust CO2 emission standard 

shall be the combined city/highway carbon-related exhaust emission value calculated for 

the appropriate vehicle carline/subconfiguration according to the provisions of § 

600.113–12(g)(4) of this chapter multiplied by 1.1 and rounded to the nearest whole gram 

per mile. For in-use vehicle carlines/subconfigurations for which a combined 

city/highway carbon-related exhaust emission value was not determined under § 600.113-

12(g)(4) of this chapter, the in-use exhaust CO2 emission standard shall be the combined 

city/highway carbon-related exhaust emission value calculated according to the 

provisions of § 600.208–12 of this chapter for the vehicle model type (except that total 

model year production data shall be used instead of sales projections) multiplied by 1.1 

and rounded to the nearest whole gram per mile. For vehicles that are capable of 

operating on multiple fuels, including but not limited to alcohol dual fuel, natural gas 

dual fuel and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, a separate in-use standard shall be 

determined for each fuel that the vehicle is capable of operating on. These standards 

apply to in-use testing performed by the manufacturer pursuant to regulations at §§ 

86.1845–04 and 86.1846–01 and to in-use testing performed by EPA. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 86.1823-08 is amended by revising paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (m)(3) to read 

as follows: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 168 of 339 

§ 86.1823-08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust emissions. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) For the 2012 through 2014 model years only, manufacturers may use alternative 

deterioration factors. For N2O, the alternative deterioration factor to be used to adjust 

FTP and HFET emissions is the additive or multiplicative deterioration factor determined 

for (or derived from) NOX emissions according to the provisions of this section. For CH4, 

the alternative deterioration factor to be used to adjust FTP and HFET emissions is the 

addititive or multiplicative deterioration factor determined for (or derived from) NMOG 

or NMHC emissions according to the provisions of this section. 

* * * * * 

(3) Other carbon-related exhaust emissions. Deterioration factors shall be determined 

according to the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (l) of this section. Optionally, in 

lieu of determining emission-specific FTP and HFET deterioration factors for CH3OH 

(methanol), HCHO (formaldehyde), C2H5OH (ethanol), and C2H4O (acetaldehyde), 

manufacturers may use the additive or multiplicative deterioration factor determined for 

(or derived from) NMOG or NMHC emissions according to the provisions of this section. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 86.1841–01 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1841-01 Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of certification. 

(a) * * * 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 169 of 339 

(3) Compliance with full useful life CO2 exhaust emission standards shall be 

demonstrated at certification by the certification levels on the FTP and HFET tests for 

carbon-related exhaust emissions determined according to § 600.113-12 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

8. Section 86.1848–10 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(9)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1848-10 Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of certification. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(9) * * * 

(i) Failure to meet the fleet average CO2 requirements will be considered a failure to 

satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate(s) was (were) issued and the 

vehicles sold in violation of the fleet average CO2 standard will not be covered by the 

certificate(s). The vehicles sold in violation will be determined according to § 86.1865–

12(k)(8). 

* * * * * 

9. Section 86.1865–12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, (d), 

(j)(1), (k)(8)(iii) through (v), and (k)(9)(iv)(B) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1865-12 How to comply with the fleet average CO2 standards. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Unless otherwise exempted under the provisions of § 86.1801–12(j) or (k), CO2 fleet 

average exhaust emission standards apply to: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 170 of 339 

* * * * * 

(d) Small volume manufacturer certification procedures. Certification procedures for 

small volume manufacturers are provided in § 86.1838–01. Small businesses meeting 

certain criteria may be exempted from the greenhouse gas emission standards in § 

86.1818–12 according to the provisions of § 86.1801–12(j) or (k). 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) Compliance and enforcement requirements are provided in this section and § 

86.1848–10(c)(9). 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(iii) EPA will determine the vehicles not covered by a certificate because the condition on 

the certificate was not satisfied by designating vehicles in those test groups with the 

highest carbon-related exhaust emission values first and continuing until reaching a 

number of vehicles equal to the calculated number of noncomplying vehicles as 

determined in paragraph (k)(8) of this section. If this calculation determines that only a 

portion of vehicles in a test group contribute to the debit situation, then EPA will 

designate actual vehicles in that test group as not covered by the certificate, starting with 

the last vehicle produced and counting backwards. 

(iv)(A) If a manufacturer ceases production of passenger cars and light trucks, the 

manufacturer continues to be responsible for offsetting any debits outstanding within the 

required time period. Any failure to offset the debits will be considered a violation of 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 171 of 339 

paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section and may subject the manufacturer to an enforcement 

action for sale of vehicles not covered by a certificate, pursuant to paragraphs (k)(8)(ii) 

and (iii) of this section. 

(B) If a manufacturer is purchased by, merges with, or otherwise combines with another 

manufacturer, the controlling entity is responsible for offsetting any debits outstanding 

within the required time period. Any failure to offset the debits will be considered a 

violation of paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section and may subject the manufacturer to an 

enforcement action for sale of vehicles not covered by a certificate, pursuant to 

paragraphs (k)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this section. 

(v) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, a violation of the requirements 

of paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section, a failure to satisfy the conditions upon which a 

certificate(s) was issued and hence a sale of vehicles not covered by the certificate, all 

occur upon the expiration of the deadline for offsetting debits specified in paragraph 

(k)(8)(i) of this section. 

(9) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(B) Failure to offset the debits within the required time period will be considered a failure 

to satisfy the conditions upon which the certificate(s) was issued and will be addressed 

pursuant to paragraph (k)(8) of this section. 

* * * * * 

10. Section 86.1867–12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iv)(A), (a)(3)(iv)(F), 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 172 of 339 

(a)(3)(vi), (a)(4), and (b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1867-12 Optional early CO2 credit programs. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(A) Total model year sales data will be used, instead of production data, except that 

vehicles sold in California and the section 177 states determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 

this section shall not be included. 

* * * * * 

(F) Electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric model type carbon-related exhaust 

emission values shall be included in the fleet average determined under paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section only to the extent that such vehicles are not being used to generate early 

advanced technology vehicle credits under paragraph (c) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(vi) Credits are earned on the last day of the model year. Manufacturers must calculate, 

for a given model year, the number of credits or debits it has generated according to the 

following equation, rounded to the nearest megagram: 

CO2 Credits or Debits (Mg) = [(CO2 Credit Threshold − Manufacturer's Sales Weighted 

Fleet Average CO2 Emissions) × (Total Number of Vehicles Sold) × (Vehicle Lifetime 

Miles)] ÷ 1,000,000 

Where: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 173 of 339 

CO2 Credit Threshold = the applicable credit threshold value for the model year and 

vehicle averaging set as determined by paragraph (a)(3)(vii) of this section; 

Manufacturer's Sales Weighted Fleet Average CO2 Emissions = average calculated 

according to paragraph (a)(3)(vi) of this section; 

Total Number of Vehicles Sold = The number of vehicles domestically sold as defined in 

§ 600.511–80 of this chapter except that vehicles sold in California and the section 177 

states determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section shall not be included; and 

Vehicle Lifetime Miles is 195,264 for the LDV/LDT1 averaging set and 225,865 for the 

LDT2/HLDT/MDPV averaging set. 

* * * * * 

(4) Pathway 4. Pathway 4 credits are those credits earned under Pathway 3 as described 

in paragraph (a)(3) of this section in the set of states that does not include California and 

the section 177 states determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section and calculated 

according to paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Credits may only be generated by vehicles 

sold in the set of states that does not include California and the section 177 states 

determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. 

(b) * * * 

(2) Manufacturers that select Pathway 4 as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section 

may not generate early air conditioning credits for vehicles sold in California and the 

section 177 states as determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. 

* * * * * 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 174 of 339 

PART 600— FUEL ECONOMY AND CARBON‐RELATED EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF MOTOR

VEHICLES  

11. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901—23919q, Pub. L. 109–58. 

Subpart A—General Provisions

12. The heading for subpart A is revised as set forth above. 

§ 600.001-08, § 600.001-86, § 600.001-93, § 600.002-85, § 600.002-93, § 600.004-77, § 

600.006-86, § 600.006-87, § 600.006-89, § 600.007-80, § 600.008-01, § 600.008-77, § 

600.010-86—[Removed] 

13. Subpart A is amended by removing the following sections: 

§ 600.001-08 

§ 600.001-86 

§ 600.001-93 

§ 600.002-85 

§ 600.002-93 

§ 600.004-77 

§ 600.006-86 

§ 600.006-87 

§ 600.006-89 

§ 600.007-80 

§ 600.008-01 

§ 600.008-77 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 175 of 339 

§ 600.010-86 

14. Redesignate §§ 600.001-12 through 600.011-93 as follows: 

old section new section

§ 600.001‐12 § 600.001

§ 600.002‐08 § 600.002

§ 600.003‐77 § 600.003

§ 600.005‐81 § 600.005

§ 600.006‐08 § 600.006

§ 600.007‐08 § 600.007

§ 600.008‐08 § 600.008

§ 600.009‐85 § 600.009

§ 600.010‐08 § 600.010

§ 600.011‐93 § 600.011

15. The redesignated § 600.001 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.001 General applicability. 

(a) The provisions of this part apply for 2008 and later model year automobiles that are 

not medium duty passenger vehicles, and to 2011 and later model year automobiles 

including medium-duty passenger vehicles. 

(b) The provisions of subparts A, D, and F of this part are optional through the 2011 

model year in the following cases: 

(1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt from the requirements 

of this subpart, except with regard to the requirements in those sections pertaining 

specifically to electric vehicles. 

(2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric vehicle production) of 

less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel powered passenger automobiles and light 

trucks may optionally comply with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 176 of 339 

(c) Unless stated otherwise, references to fuel economy or fuel economy data in this part 

shall also be interpreted to mean the related exhaust emissions of CO2, HC, and CO, and 

where applicable for alternative fuel vehicles, CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC 

and CH4. References to average fuel economy shall be interpreted to also mean average 

carbon-related exhaust emissions. References to fuel economy data vehicles shall also be 

meant to refer to vehicles tested for carbon-related exhaust emissions for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance with fleet average CO2 standards in § 86.1818 of this chapter. 

(d) The model year of initial applicability for sections in this part is indicated by the 

section number. The two digits following the hyphen designate the first model year for 

which a section is applicable. An individual section continues to apply for later model 

years until it is replaced by a different section that applies starting in a later model year. 

Sections that have no two-digit suffix apply for all 2008 and later model year vehicles, 

except as noted in those sections. If a section has a two-digit suffix but the regulation 

references that section without including the two-digit suffix, this refers to the section 

applicable for the appropriate model year. This also applies for references to part 86 of 

this chapter. 

Example: Section 600.113–08 applies to the 2008 and subsequent model years until § 

600.113–12 is applicable beginning with the 2012 model year. Section 600.111–08 

would then apply only for 2008 through 2011 model year vehicles. 

16. The redesignated § 600.002 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.002 Definitions. 

The following definitions apply throughout this part: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 177 of 339 

3-bag FTP means the Federal Test Procedure specified in part 86 of this chapter, with 

three sampling portions consisting of the cold-start transient (“Bag 1”), stabilized (“Bag 

2”), and hot-start transient phases (“Bag 3”). 

4-bag FTP means the 3-bag FTP, with the addition of a sampling portion for the hot-start 

stabilized phase (“Bag 4”). 

5-cycle means the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP tests as described 

in subparts B and C of this part. 

Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or his 

authorized representative. 

Alcohol means a mixture containing 85 percent or more by volume methanol, ethanol, or 

other alcohols, in any combination. 

Alcohol-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to operate exclusively on 

alcohol. 

Alcohol dual fuel automobile means an automobile: 

(1) Which is designed to operate on alcohol and on gasoline or diesel fuel; and 

(2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated in accordance with § 

600.510-08(g)(1) or § 600.510-12(g)(1) while operating on alcohol as it does while 

operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and 

(3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds the minimum driving 

range established by the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR part 538. 

Automobile has the meaning given by the Department of Transportation at 49 CFR 523.3. 

This includes “passenger automobiles” and “non-passenger automobiles” (or “light 

trucks”). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 178 of 339 

Auxiliary emission control device (AECD) means an element of design as defined in § 

86.1803 of this chapter. 

Average fuel economy means the unique fuel economy value as computed under § 

600.510 for a specific class of automobiles produced by a manufacturer that is subject to 

average fuel economy standards. 

Axle ratio means the number of times the input shaft to the differential (or equivalent) 

turns for each turn of the drive wheels. 

Base level means a unique combination of basic engine, inertia weight class and 

transmission class. 

Base tire means the tire specified as standard equipment by the manufacturer. 

Base vehicle means the lowest priced version of each body style that makes up a car line. 

Basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer, engine displacement, number 

of cylinders, fuel system (e.g., type of fuel injection), catalyst usage, and other engine and 

emission control system characteristics specified by the Administrator. For electric 

vehicles, basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer and electric traction 

motor, motor controller, battery configuration, electrical charging system, energy storage 

device, and other components as specified by the Administrator. 

Battery configuration means the electrochemical type, voltage, capacity (in Watt-hours at 

the c/3 rate), and physical characteristics of the battery used as the tractive energy device. 

Body style means a level of commonality in vehicle construction as defined by number of 

doors and roof treatment (e.g., sedan, convertible, fastback, hatchback) and number of 

seats ( i.e. , front, second, or third seat) requiring seat belts pursuant to National Highway 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 179 of 339 

Traffic Safety Administration safety regulations in 49 CFR part 571. Station wagons and 

light trucks are identified as car lines. 

Calibration means the set of specifications, including tolerances, unique to a particular 

design, version of application of a component, or component assembly capable of 

functionally describing its operation over its working range. 

Carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE) means the summation of the carboncontaining constituents of the exhaust emissions, with each constituent adjusted by a 

coefficient representing the carbon weight fraction of each constituent relative to the CO2

carbon weight fraction, as specified in § 600.113. For example, carbon-related exhaust 

emissions (weighted 55 percent city and 45 percent highway) are used to demonstrate 

compliance with fleet average CO2 emission standards outlined in § 86.1818 of this 

chapter. 

Car line means a name denoting a group of vehicles within a make or car division which 

has a degree of commonality in construction (e.g., body, chassis). Car line does not 

consider any level of decor or opulence and is not generally distinguished by 

characteristics as roof line, number of doors, seats, or windows, except for station wagons 

or light-duty trucks. Station wagons and light-duty trucks are considered to be different 

car lines than passenger cars. 

Certification vehicle means a vehicle which is selected under § 86.1828 of this chapter 

and used to determine compliance under § 86.1848 of this chapter for issuance of an 

original certificate of conformity. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 180 of 339 

City fuel economy means the city fuel economy determined by operating a vehicle (or 

vehicles) over the driving schedule in the Federal emission test procedure, or determined 

according to the vehicle-specific 5-cycle or derived 5-cycle procedures. 

Cold temperature FTP means the test performed under the provisions of subpart C of part 

86 of this chapter. 

Combined fuel economy means: 

(1) The fuel economy value determined for a vehicle (or vehicles) by harmonically 

averaging the city and highway fuel economy values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 

respectively. 

(2) For electric vehicles, the term means the equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy 

value as determined by the calculation procedure promulgated by the Secretary of 

Energy. 

Dealer means a person who resides or is located in the United States, any territory of the 

United States, or the District of Columbia and who is engaged in the sale or distribution 

of new automobiles to the ultimate purchaser. 

Derived 5-cycle fuel economy means the 5-cycle fuel economy derived from the FTPbased city and HFET-based highway fuel economy by means of the equation provided in 

§ 600.210. 

Diesel equivalent gallon means an amount of electricity or fuel with the energy 

equivalence of one gallon of diesel fuel. For purposes of this part, one gallon of gasoline 

is equivalent to 36.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity. 

Drive system is determined by the number and location of drive axles (e.g., front wheel 

drive, rear wheel drive, four wheel drive) and any other feature of the drive system if the 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 181 of 339 

Administrator determines that such other features may result in a fuel economy 

difference. 

Electrical charging system means a device to convert 60 Hz alternating electric current, 

as commonly available in residential electric service in the United States, to a proper 

form for recharging the energy storage device. 

Electric traction motor means an electrically powered motor which provides tractive 

energy to the wheels of a vehicle. 

Electric vehicle has the meaning given in § 86.1803 of this chapter. 

Energy storage device means a rechargeable means of storing tractive energy on board a 

vehicle such as storage batteries or a flywheel. 

Engine code means a unique combination, within an engine-system combination (as 

defined in § 86.1803 of this chapter), of displacement, fuel injection (or carburetion or 

other fuel delivery system), calibration, distributor calibration, choke calibration, 

auxiliary emission control devices, and other engine and emission control system 

components specified by the Administrator. For electric vehicles, engine code means a 

unique combination of manufacturer, electric traction motor, motor configuration, motor 

controller, and energy storage device. 

Federal emission test procedure (FTP) refers to the dynamometer driving schedule, 

dynamometer procedure, and sampling and analytical procedures described in part 86 of 

this chapter for the respective model year, which are used to derive city fuel economy 

data. 

Footprint has the meaning given in § 86.1803 of this chapter.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 182 of 339 

FTP-based city fuel economy means the fuel economy determined in § 600.113 of this 

part, on the basis of FTP testing. 

Fuel means: 

(1) Gasoline and diesel fuel for gasoline- or diesel-powered automobiles; or 

(2) Electrical energy for electrically powered automobiles; or 

(3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobiles; or 

(4) Natural gas for natural gas-powered automobiles; or 

(5) Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG), commonly referred to as “propane,” for LPG-powered 

automobiles; or 

(6) Hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell automobiles and for automobiles equipped with 

hydrogen internal combustion engines. 

Fuel cell has the meaning given in § 86.1803 of this chapter. 

Fuel cell vehicle has the meaning given in § 86.1803 of this chapter. 

Fuel economy means: 

(1) The average number of miles traveled by an automobile or group of automobiles per 

volume of fuel consumed as calculated in this part; or 

(2) For the purpose of calculating average fuel economy pursuant to the provisions of part 

600, subpart F, fuel economy for electrically powered automobiles means the equivalent 

petroleum-based fuel economy as determined by the Secretary of Energy in accordance 

with the provisions of 10 CFR 474. 

Fuel economy data vehicle means a vehicle used for the purpose of determining fuel 

economy which is not a certification vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 183 of 339 

Gasoline equivalent gallon means an amount of electricity or fuel with the energy 

equivalence of one gallon of gasoline. For purposes of this part, one gallon of gasoline is 

equivalent to 33.705 kilowatt-hours of electricity or 121.5 standard cubic feet of natural 

gas. 

Good engineering judgment has the meaning given in § 1068.30 of this chapter. See § 

1068.5 of this chapter for the administrative process we use to evaluate good engineering 

judgment.

Gross vehicle weight rating means the manufacturer's gross weight rating for the 

individual vehicle. 

Hatchback means a passenger automobile where the conventional luggage compartment, 

i.e., trunk, is replaced by a cargo area which is open to the passenger compartment and 

accessed vertically by a rear door which encompasses the rear window. 

Highway fuel economy means the highway fuel economy determined either by operating 

a vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule in the Federal highway fuel economy 

test procedure, or determined according to either the vehicle-specific 5-cycle equation or 

the derived 5-cycle equation for highway fuel economy. 

Highway fuel economy test procedure (HFET) refers to the dynamometer driving 

schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and analytical procedures described in 

subpart B of this part and which are used to derive highway fuel economy data. 

HFET-based fuel economy means the highway fuel economy determined in § 600.113 of 

this part, on the basis of HFET testing. 

Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) has the meaning given in § 86.1803 of this chapter. 

Independent Commercial Importer has the meaning given in § 85.1502 of this chapter.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 184 of 339 

Inertia weight class means the class, which is a group of test weights, into which a 

vehicle is grouped based on its loaded vehicle weight in accordance with the provisions 

of part 86 of this chapter. 

Label means a sticker that contains fuel economy information and is affixed to new 

automobiles in accordance with subpart D of this part. 

Light truck means an automobile that is not a passenger automobile, as defined by the 

Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This term is interchangeable with “nonpassenger automobile.” The term the “light truck” includes medium-duty passenger 

vehicles which are manufactured during 2011 and later model years. 

Medium-duty passenger vehicle means a vehicle which would satisfy the criteria for light 

trucks as defined by the Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5 but for its gross 

vehicle weight rating or its curb weight, which is rated at more than 8,500 lbs GVWR or 

has a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 pounds or has a basic vehicle frontal area in 

excess of 45 square feet, and which is designed primarily to transport passengers, but 

does not include a vehicle that: 

(1) Is an “incomplete truck” as defined in this subpart; or 

(2) Has a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; or 

(3) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the driver's seat; or 

(4) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for example, a pick-up truck box or bed) of 72.0 

inches in interior length or more. A covered box not readily accessible from the 

passenger compartment will be considered an open cargo area for purposes of this 

definition. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 185 of 339 

Minivan means a light truck which is designed primarily to carry no more than eight 

passengers, having an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver, passenger, and loadcarrying compartments, and rear seats readily removed, folded, stowed, or pivoted to 

facilitate cargo carrying. A minivan typically includes one or more sliding doors and a 

rear liftgate. Minivans typically have less total interior volume or overall height than full 

sized vans and are commonly advertised and marketed as “minivans.” 

Model year means the manufacturer's annual production period (as determined by the 

Administrator) which includes January 1 of such calendar year. If a manufacturer has no 

annual production period, the term “model year” means the calendar year. 

Model type means a unique combination of car line, basic engine, and transmission class. 

Motor controller means an electronic or electro-mechanical device to convert energy 

stored in an energy storage device into a form suitable to power the traction motor. 

Natural gas-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to operate exclusively on 

natural gas. 

Natural gas dual fuel automobile means an automobile: 

(1) Which is designed to operate on natural gas and on gasoline or diesel fuel; 

(2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated in § 600.510-08(g)(1) 

while operating on natural gas as it does while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and 

(3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds the minimum driving 

range established by the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR part 538. 

Non-passenger automobile has the meaning given by the Department of Transportation at 

49 CFR 523.5. This term is synonymous with “light truck.” 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 186 of 339 

Passenger automobile has the meaning given by the Department of Transportation at 49 

CFR 523.4.

Pickup truck means a nonpassenger automobile which has a passenger compartment and 

an open cargo bed. 

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) has the meaning given in § 86.1803 of this 

chapter. 

Production volume means, for a domestic manufacturer, the number of vehicle units 

domestically produced in a particular model year but not exported, and for a foreign 

manufacturer, means the number of vehicle units of a particular model imported into the 

United States. 

QR Code means Quick Response Code, which is a registered trademark of Denso Wave, 

Incorporated. 

Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001, unless specified otherwise. 

SC03 means the test procedure specified in § 86.160 of this chapter. 

Secretary of Transportation means the Secretary of Transportation or his authorized 

representative. 

Secretary of Energy means the Secretary of Energy or his authorized representative. 

Sport utility vehicle (SUV) means a light truck with an extended roof line to increase 

cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to the passenger compartment, and 

one or more rear seats readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying. 

Station wagon means a passenger automobile with an extended roof line to increase cargo 

or passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to the passenger compartment, a tailgate, 

and one or more rear seats readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 187 of 339 

Subconfiguration means a unique combination within a vehicle configuration of 

equivalent test weight, road-load horsepower, and any other operational characteristics or 

parameters which the Administrator determines may significantly affect fuel economy 

within a vehicle configuration. 

Track width has the meaning given in § 86.1803 of this chapter.

Transmission class means a group of transmissions having the following common 

features: Basic transmission type (manual, automatic, or semi-automatic); number of 

forward gears used in fuel economy testing (e.g., manual four-speed, three-speed 

automatic, two-speed semi-automatic); drive system (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel 

drive; four wheel drive), type of overdrive, if applicable (e.g., final gear ratio less than 

1.00, separate overdrive unit); torque converter type, if applicable (e.g., non-lockup, 

lockup, variable ratio); and other transmission characteristics that may be determined to 

be significant by the Administrator. 

Transmission configuration means the Administrator may further subdivide within a 

transmission class if the Administrator determines that sufficient fuel economy 

differences exist. Features such as gear ratios, torque converter multiplication ratio, stall 

speed, shift calibration, or shift speed may be used to further distinguish characteristics 

within a transmission class. 

Test weight means the weight within an inertia weight class which is used in the 

dynamometer testing of a vehicle, and which is based on its loaded vehicle weight in 

accordance with the provisions of part 86 of this chapter. 

Ultimate consumer means the first person who purchases an automobile for purposes 

other than resale or leases an automobile. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 188 of 339 

US06 means the test procedure as described in § 86.159 of this chapter. 

US06-City means the combined periods of the US06 test that occur before and after the 

US06-Highway period. 

US06-Highway means the period of the US06 test that begins at the end of the 

deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 130 seconds of the driving schedule and 

terminates at the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 495 seconds of 

the driving schedule. 

Van means any light truck having an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver 

compartment and load carrying compartment. The distance from the leading edge of the 

windshield to the foremost body section of vans is typically shorter than that of pickup 

trucks and SUVs. 

Vehicle configuration means a unique combination of basic engine, engine code, inertia 

weight class, transmission configuration, and axle ratio within a base level. 

Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy means the fuel economy calculated according to 

the procedures in § 600.114. 

Wheelbase has the meaning given in § 86.1803 of this chapter. 

17. The redesignated § 600.003 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.003   Abbreviations.

The abbreviations and acronyms used in this part have the same meaning as those in part 

86 of this chapter, with the addition of the following: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 189 of 339 

(a) “MPG” or “mpg” means miles per gallon. This may be used to generally describe 

fuel economy as a quantity, or it may be used as the units associated with a particular 

value. 

(b) MPGe means miles per gallon equivalent. This is generally used to quantify a fuel 

economy value for vehicles that use a fuel other than gasoline. The value represents 

miles the vehicle can drive with the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. 

(c) SCF means standard cubic feet. 

(d) SUV means sport utility vehicle. 

(e) CREE means carbon-related exhaust emissions. 

18. The redesignated § 600.005 is amended by revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 600.005   Maintenance of records and rights of entry.

The provisions of this section are applicable to all fuel economy data vehicles. 

Certification vehicles are required to meet the provisions of § 86.1844 of this chapter. 

(a) The manufacturer of any new motor vehicle subject to any of the standards or 

procedures prescribed in this part shall establish, maintain, and retain the following 

adequately organized and indexed records: 

(1) General records. (i) Identification and description of all vehicles for which data are 

submitted to meet the requirements of this part. 

(ii) A description of all procedures used to test each vehicle. 

(iii) A copy of the information required to be submitted under § 600.006 fulfills the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 190 of 339 

(2) Individual records. (i) A brief history of each vehicle for which data are submitted to 

meet the requirements of this part, in the form of a separate booklet or other document for 

each separate vehicles, in which must be recorded: 

(A) The steps taken to ensure that the vehicle with respect to its engine, drive train, fuel 

system, emission control system components, exhaust after treatment device, vehicle 

weight, or any other device or component, as applicable, will be representative of 

production vehicles. In the case of electric vehicles, the manufacturer should describe the 

steps taken to ensure that the vehicle with respect to its electric traction motor, motor 

controller, battery configuration, or any other device or component, as applicable, will be 

representative of production vehicles. 

(B) A complete record of all emission tests performed under part 86 of this chapter, all 

fuel economy tests performed under this part 600 (except tests actually performed by 

EPA personnel), and all electric vehicle tests performed according to procedures 

promulgated by DOE, including all individual worksheets and other documentation 

relating to each such test or exact copies thereof; the date, time, purpose, and location of 

each test; the number of miles accumulated on the vehicle when the tests began and 

ended; and the names of supervisory personnel responsible for the conduct of the tests. 

(C) A description of mileage accumulated since selection of buildup of such vehicles 

including the date and time of each mileage accumulation listing both the mileage 

accumulated and the name of each driver, or each operator of the automatic mileage 

accumulation device, if applicable. Additionally, a description of mileage accumulated 

prior to selection or buildup of such vehicle must be maintained in such detail as is 

available. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 191 of 339 

(D) If used, the record of any devices employed to record the speed or mileage, or both, 

of the test vehicle in relationship to time. 

(E) A record and description of all maintenance and other servicing performed, within 

2,000 miles prior to fuel economy testing under this part, giving the date and time of the 

maintenance or service, the reason for it, the person authorizing it, and the names of 

supervisory personnel responsible for the conduct of the maintenance or service. A copy 

of the maintenance information to be submitted under § 600.006 fulfills the requirements 

of this paragraph (a)(2)(i)(E). 

(F) A brief description of any significant events affecting the vehicle during any of the 

period covered by the history not described in an entry under one of the previous 

headings including such extraordinary events as vehicle accidents or driver speeding 

citations or warnings. 

(3) The manufacturer shall retain all records required under this part for five years after 

the end of the model year to which they relate. Records may be retained as hard copy or 

some alternative storage medium, provided that in every case all the information 

contained in hard copy shall be retained. 

* * * * * 

19. The redesignated § 600.006 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.006 Data and information requirements for fuel economy data vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(c) The manufacturer shall submit the following fuel economy data: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 192 of 339 

(1) For vehicles tested to meet the requirements of part 86 of this chapter (other than 

those chosen in accordance with the provisions related to durability demonstration in § 

86.1829 of this chapter or in-use verification testing in § 86.1845 of this chapter), the 

FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP fuel economy results, as 

applicable, from all tests on that vehicle, and the test results adjusted in accordance with 

paragraph (g) of this section. 

(2) For each fuel economy data vehicle, all individual test results (excluding results of 

invalid and zero mile tests) and these test results adjusted in accordance with paragraph 

(g) of this section. 

(3) For diesel vehicles tested to meet the requirements of part 86 of this chapter, data 

from a cold temperature FTP, performed in accordance with § 600.111–08(e), using the 

fuel specified in § 600.107–08(c). 

(4) For all vehicles tested in paragraph (c)(1) through (3) of this section, the individual 

fuel economy results measured on a per-phase basis, that is, the individual phase results 

for all sample phases of the FTP, cold temperature FTP and US06 tests. 

(5) Starting with the 2012 model year, the data submitted according to paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (4) of this section shall include total HC, CO, CO2, and, where applicable for 

alternative fuel vehicles, CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC and CH4. 

Manufacturers incorporating N2O and CH4 emissions in their fleet average carbon-related 

exhaust emissions as allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter shall also submit N2O and 

CH4 emission data where applicable. The fuel economy and CO2 emission test results 

shall be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section. 

* * * * * 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 193 of 339 

(e) In lieu of submitting actual data from a test vehicle, a manufacturer may provide fuel 

economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission values derived from a 

previously tested vehicle, where the fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 

exhaust emissions are expected to be equivalent (or less fuel-efficient and with higher 

CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions). Additionally, in lieu of submitting 

actual data from a test vehicle, a manufacturer may provide fuel economy, CO2

emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission values derived from an analytical 

expression, e.g., regression analysis. In order for fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and 

carbon-related exhaust emission values derived from analytical methods to be accepted, 

the expression (form and coefficients) must have been approved by the Administrator. 

* * * * * 

(g)(1) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data used for fuel economy label calculations 

in subpart D and average fuel economy calculations in subpart F for the classes of 

automobiles within the categories identified in paragraphs of § 600.510(a)(1) through (4). 

The test data shall be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) or (4) of this section 

as applicable. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3)(i) The manufacturer shall adjust all fuel economy test data generated by vehicles with 

engine-drive system combinations with more than 6,200 miles by using the following 

equation: 

FE4,000mi= FET[0.979 + 5.25×10−6

(mi)]−1

Where: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 194 of 339 

FE4,000mi= Fuel economy data adjusted to 4,000-mile test point rounded to the nearest 0.1 

mpg. 

FET= Tested fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg. 

mi = System miles accumulated at the start of the test rounded to the nearest whole mile. 

(ii)(A) 

The manufacturer shall adjust all CO2 test data generated by vehicles with engine-drive 

system combinations with more than 6,200 miles by using the following equation: 

CO24,000mi= CO2T[0.979 + 5.25·10−6 · (mi)] 

Where: 

CO24,000mi= CO2 emission data adjusted to 4,000-mile test point. 

CO2T= Tested emissions value of CO2 in grams per mile. 

mi = System miles accumulated at the start of the test rounded to the nearest whole mile. 

(B) Emissions test values and results used and determined in the calculations in this 

paragraph (g)(3)(ii) shall be rounded in accordance with § 86.1837 of this chapter as 

applicable. CO2 and CREE values shall be rounded to the nearest gram per mile. 

(4) For vehicles with 6,200 miles or less accumulated, the manufacturer is not required to 

adjust the data. 

20. The redesignated § 600.007 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.007   Vehicle acceptability.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 195 of 339 

(a) All certification vehicles and other vehicles tested to meet the requirements of part 86 

of this chapter (other than those chosen under the durability-demonstration provisions in 

§ 86.1829 of this chapter), are considered to have met the requirements of this section. 

(b) Any vehicle not meeting the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section must be 

judged acceptable by the Administrator under this section in order for the test results to 

be reviewed for use in subpart C or F of this part. The Administrator will judge the 

acceptability of a fuel economy data vehicle on the basis of the information supplied by 

the manufacturer under § 600.006(b). The criteria to be met are: 

(1) A fuel economy data vehicle may have accumulated not more than 10,000 miles. A 

vehicle will be considered to have met this requirement if the engine and drivetrain have 

accumulated 10,000 or fewer miles. The components installed for a fuel economy test are 

not required to be the ones with which the mileage was accumulated, e.g., axles, 

transmission types, and tire sizes may be changed. The Administrator will determine if 

vehicle/engine component changes are acceptable. 

(2) A vehicle may be tested in different vehicle configurations by change of vehicle 

components, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or by testing in different 

inertia weight classes. Also, a single vehicle may be tested under different test conditions, 

i.e. , test weight and/or road load horsepower, to generate fuel economy data representing 

various situations within a vehicle configuration. For purposes of this part, data generated 

by a single vehicle tested in various test conditions will be treated as if the data were 

generated by the testing of multiple vehicles. 

(3) The mileage on a fuel economy data vehicle must be, to the extent possible, 

accumulated according to § 86.1831 of this chapter. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 196 of 339 

(4) Each fuel economy data vehicle must meet the same exhaust emission standards as 

certification vehicles of the respective engine-system combination during the test in 

which the city fuel economy test results are generated. This may be demonstrated using 

one of the following methods: 

(i) The deterioration factors established for the respective engine-system combination per 

§ 86.1841 of this chapter as applicable will be used; or 

(ii) The fuel economy data vehicle will be equipped with aged emission control 

components according to the provisions of § 86.1823 of this chapter. 

(5) The calibration information submitted under § 600.006(b) must be representative of 

the vehicle configuration for which the fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust 

emissions data were submitted. 

(6) Any vehicle tested for fuel economy or carbon-related exhaust emissions purposes 

must be representative of a vehicle which the manufacturer intends to produce under the 

provisions of a certificate of conformity. 

(7) For vehicles imported under § 85.1509 or § 85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), (c)(4) of this 

chapter, or (e)(2) (when applicable) only the following requirements must be met: 

(i) For vehicles imported under § 85.1509 of this chapter, a highway fuel economy value 

must be generated contemporaneously with the emission tests used for purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with § 85.1509 of this chapter. No modifications or 

adjustments should be made to the vehicles between the highway fuel economy, FTP, 

US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP tests. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 197 of 339 

(ii) For vehicles imported under § 85.1509 or § 85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), or (c)(4) of 

this chapter (when applicable) with over 10,000 miles, the equation in § 600.006(g)(3) 

shall be used as though only 10,000 miles had been accumulated. 

(iii) Any required fuel economy testing must take place after any safety modifications are 

completed for each vehicle as required by regulations of the Department of 

Transportation. 

(iv) Every vehicle imported under § 85.1509 or § 85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), or (c)(4) 

of this chapter (when applicable) must be considered a separate type for the purposes of 

calculating a fuel economy label for a manufacturer's average fuel economy. 

* * * * * 

(e) If, based on a review of the emission data for a fuel economy data vehicle, submitted 

under § 600.006(b), or emission data generated by a vehicle tested under § 600.008(e), 

the Administrator finds an indication of non-compliance with section 202 of the Clean 

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq. of the regulation thereunder, he may take such 

investigative actions as are appropriate to determine to what extent emission noncompliance actually exists. 

(1) The Administrator may, under the provisions of § 86.1830 of this chapter, request the 

manufacturer to submit production vehicles of the configuration(s) specified by the 

Administrator for testing to determine to what extent emission noncompliance of a 

production vehicle configuration or of a group of production vehicle configurations may 

actually exist. 

(2) If the Administrator determines, as a result of his investigation, that substantial 

emission non-compliance is exhibited by a production vehicle configuration or group of 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 198 of 339 

production vehicle configurations, he may proceed with respect to the vehicle 

configuration(s) as provided under § 600.206-08(b), § 600.206-12(b), § 600.207-08(c), or 

§ 600.207-12(c) as applicable of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq. 

* * * * * 

21. The redesignated § 600.008 is amended by revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 600.008   Review of fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon‐related exhaust

emission data, testing by the Administrator.

(a) * * * 

(1)(i) The Administrator may require that any one or more of the test vehicles be 

submitted to the Agency, at such place or places as the Agency may designate, for the 

purposes of conducting fuel economy tests. The Administrator may specify that such 

testing be conducted at the manufacturer's facility, in which case instrumentation and 

equipment specified by the Administrator shall be made available by the manufacturer for 

test operations. The tests to be performed may comprise the FTP, highway fuel economy 

test, US06, SC03, or Cold temperature FTP or any combination of those tests. Any 

testing conducted at a manufacturer's facility pursuant to this paragraph shall be 

scheduled by the manufacturer as promptly as possible. 

(ii) Starting with the 2012 model year, evaluations, testing, and test data described in this 

section pertaining to fuel economy shall also be performed for CO2 emissions and 

carbon-related exhaust emissions, except that CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust 

emissions shall be arithmetically averaged instead of harmonically averaged, and in cases 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 199 of 339 

where the manufacturer selects the lowest of several fuel economy results to represent the 

vehicle, the manufacturer shall select the CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust 

emissions value from the test results associated with the lowest selected fuel economy 

results. 

(2) * * * 

(i) The manufacturer's fuel economy data (or harmonically averaged data if more than 

one test was conducted) will be compared with the results of the Administrator's test. 

* * * * * 

22. The redesignated § 600.009 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.009   Hearing on acceptance of test data.

(a) The manufacturer may request a hearing on the Administrator's decision if the 

Administrator rejects any of the following: 

(1) The use of a manufacturer's fuel economy data vehicle, in accordance with§ 

600.008(e) or (g), or 

(2) The use of fuel economy data, in accordance with § 600.008(c), or (f), or 

(3) The determination of a vehicle configuration, in accordance with § 600.206(a), or 

(4) The identification of a car line, in accordance with § 600.002(a)(20), or 

(5) The fuel economy label values determined by the manufacturer under § 600.312(a), 

then: 

(b) The request for a hearing must be filed in writing within 30 day after being notified of 

the Administrator’s decision. The request must be signed by an authorized representative 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 200 of 339 

of the manufacturer and include a statement specifying the manufacturer's objections to 

the Administrator's determinations, with data in support of such objection. 

(c) If, after the review of the request and supporting data, the Administrator finds that the 

request raises one or more substantial factual issues, the Administrator shall provide the 

manufacturer with a hearing in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, 

subpart G. 

(d) A manufacturer's use of any fuel economy data which the manufacturer challenges 

pursuant to this section shall not constitute final acceptance by the manufacturer nor 

prejudice the manufacturer in the exercise of any appeal pursuant to this section 

challenging such fuel economy data. 

23. The redesignated § 600.010 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, 

(c), and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 600.010   Vehicle test requirements and minimum data requirements.

(a) Unless otherwise exempted from specific emission compliance requirements, for each 

certification vehicle defined in this part, and for each vehicle tested according to the 

emission test procedures in part 86 of this chapter for addition of a model after 

certification or approval of a running change (§ 86.1842 of this chapter, as applicable): 

* * * * * 

(c) Minimum data requirements for labeling. (1) In order to establish fuel economy label 

values under § 600301, the manufacturer shall use only test data accepted in accordance 

with § 600.008 meeting the minimum coverage of: 

(i) Data required for emission certification under §§ 86.1828 and 86.1842 of this chapter. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 201 of 339 

(ii)(A) FTP and HFET data from the highest projected model year sales subconfiguration 

within the highest projected model year sales configuration for each base level, and 

(B) If required under § 600.115–08, for 2011 and later model year vehicles, US06, SC03 

and cold temperature FTP data from the highest projected model year sales 

subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales configuration for each 

base level. Manufacturers may optionally generate this data for any 2008 through 2010 

model years, and, 2011 and later model year vehicles, if not otherwise required. 

(iii) For additional model types established under § 600.208-08(a)(2), § 600.208-12(a)(2) 

§ 600.209-08(a)(2), or § 600.209-12(a)(2) FTP and HFET data, and if required under § 

600.115, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP data from each subconfiguration 

included within the model type. 

(2) For the purpose of recalculating fuel economy label values as required under § 

600.314-08(b), the manufacturer shall submit data required under § 600.507. 

(d) Minimum data requirements for the manufacturer's average fuel economy and average 

carbon-related exhaust emissions For the purpose of calculating the manufacturer's 

average fuel economy and average carbon-related exhaust emissions under § 600.510, the 

manufacturer shall submit FTP (city) and HFET (highway) test data representing at least 

90 percent of the manufacturer's actual model year production, by configuration, for each 

category identified for calculation under § 600.510–08(a)(1) or § 600.510-12(a)(1). 

24. The redesignated § 600.011 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.011   Reference materials.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 202 of 339 

(a) Incorporation by reference. The documents referenced in this section have been 

incorporated by reference in this part. The incorporation by reference was approved by 

the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 

51. Copies may be inspected at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, phone (202) 272–

0167, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information 

on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: 

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html

and is available from the sources listed below: 

(b) ASTM. The following material is available from the American Society for Testing 

and Materials. Copies of these materials may be obtained from American Society for 

Testing and Materials, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, phone 610-832-9585. http://www.astm.org/.

(1) [Reserved] 

(2) ASTM D 1298–99 (Reapproved 2005) Standard Practice for Density, Relative 

Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum 

Products by Hydrometer Method, IBR approved for §§ 600.113–08, 600.510–08, and 

600.510-12. 

(3) ASTM D 3343–05 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Hydrogen Content of 

Aviation Fuels, IBR approved for § 600.113–08. 

(4) ASTM D 3338–09 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion 

of Aviation Fuels, IBR approved for § 600.113–08. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 203 of 339 

(5) ASTM D 240–09 Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid 

Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter, IBR approved for §§ 600.113–08, and 

600.510–08. 

(6) ASTM D975–10 Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, IBR approved for § 

600.107–08. 

(7) ASTM D 1945–03 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural 

Gas By Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for §600.113–08. 

(c) SAE Material. The following material is available from the Society of Automotive 

Engineers. Copies of these materials may be obtained from Society of Automotive 

Engineers World Headquarters, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096–0001, 

phone (877) 606–7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724) 776–4970 (outside the U.S. and 

Canada), or at http://www.sae.org. 

(1) Motor Vehicle Dimensions—Recommended Practice SAE 1100a (Report of Human 

Factors Engineering Committee, Society of Automotive Engineers, approved September 

1973 as revised September 1975), IBR approved for § 600.315-08. 

(2) SAE J1634, Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure, 

October 2002, IBR approved for §§ 600.116–12 and 600.311-12. 

(3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions and Fuel 

Economy of Hybrid-Electrric Vehicles, Including Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles, June 2010, 

IBR approved for §§ 600.116–12 and 600.311-12. 

(d) ISO Material. The following material is available from the International Organization 

for Standardization. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the International 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 204 of 339 

Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH–1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland or 

http://www.iso.org. 

(1) ISO/IEC 18004:2006, “Information technology—Automatic identification and data 

capture techniques -- QR Code 2005 bar code symbology specification.” 

(2) [Reserved] 

Subpart B— FUEL ECONOMY AND CARBON‐RELATED EXHAUST EMISSION TEST

PROCEDURES

25. The heading for subpart B is revised as set forth above. 

§ 600.101‐08, § 600.101‐12, § 600.101‐86, § 600.101‐93, § 600.102‐78, § 600.103‐78, §

600.104‐78, § 600.105‐78, § 600.106‐78, § 600.107‐78, § 600.107‐93, § 600.109‐78, §

600.110‐78, § 600.111‐80, § 600.111‐93, § 600.112‐78, § 600.113‐78, § 600.113‐88, §

600.113‐93—[Removed]

26. Subpart B is amended by removing the following sections: 

§ 600.101-08 

§ 600.101-12 

§ 600.101-86 

§ 600.101-93 

§ 600.102-78 

§ 600.103-78 

§ 600.104-78 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 205 of 339 

§ 600.105-78 

§ 600.106-78 

§ 600.107-78 

§ 600.107-93 

§ 600.109-78 

§ 600.110-78 

§ 600.111-80 

§ 600.111-93 

§ 600.112-78 

§ 600.113-78 

§ 600.113-88 

§ 600.113-93 

27. Section § 600.106-08 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.106‐08   Equipment requirements.

The requirements for test equipment to be used for all fuel economy testing are given in 

subparts B and C of part 86 of this chapter. 

28. Section § 600.107-08 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.107‐08   Fuel specifications.

 (a) The test fuel specifications for gasoline, diesel, methanol, and methanol-petroleum 

fuel mixtures are given in § 86.113 of this chapter, except for cold temperature FTP fuel 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 206 of 339 

requirements for diesel and alternative fuel vehicles, which are given in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(b)(1) Diesel test fuel used for cold temperature FTP testing must comprise a wintergrade diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975–10 (incorporated by reference in § 

600.011). Alternatively, EPA may approve the use of a different diesel fuel, provided that 

the level of kerosene added shall not exceed 20 percent. 

(2) The manufacturer may request EPA approval of the use of an alternative fuel for cold 

temperature FTP testing. 

(c) Test fuels representing fuel types for which there are no specifications provided in § 

86.113 of this chapter may be used if approved in advance by the Administrator. 

29. Redesignate § 600.108-78 as § 600.108-08. 

30. Section § 600.109-08 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 600.109‐08   EPA driving cycles.

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) A graphic representation of the range of acceptable speed tolerances is found in § 

86.115 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

31. Section 600.111-08 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.111‐08   Test procedures.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 207 of 339 

This section provides test procedures for the FTP, highway, US06, SC03, and the cold 

temperature FTP tests. Testing shall be performed according to test procedures and other 

requirements contained in this part 600 and in part 86 of this chapter, including the 

provisions of part 86, subparts B, C, and S. 

(a) FTP testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for conducting the FTP 

test are those prescribed in §§ 86.127 through 86.138 of this chapter, as applicable, 

except as provided for in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (The evaporative loss portion of 

the test procedure may be omitted unless specifically required by the Administrator.) 

(b) Highway fuel economy testing procedures. (1) The Highway Fuel Economy 

Dynamometer Procedure (HFET) consists of preconditioning highway driving sequence 

and a measured highway driving sequence. 

(2) The HFET is designated to simulate non-metropolitan driving with an average speed 

of 48.6 mph and a maximum speed of 60 mph. The cycle is 10.2 miles long with 0.2 stop 

per mile and consists of warmed-up vehicle operation on a chassis dynamometer through 

a specified driving cycle. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust emission is collected 

continuously for subsequent analysis of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide 

using a constant volume (variable dilution) sampler. Diesel dilute exhaust is continuously 

analyzed for hydrocarbons using a heated sample line and analyzer. Methanol and 

formaldehyde samples are collected and individually analyzed for methanol-fueled 

vehicles (measurement of methanol and formaldehyde may be omitted for 1993 through 

1994 model year methanol-fueled vehicles provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is 

used for measuring HC plus methanol). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 208 of 339 

(3) Except in cases of component malfunction or failure, all emission control systems 

installed on or incorporated in a new motor vehicle must be functioning during all 

procedures in this subpart. The Administrator may authorize maintenance to correct 

component malfunction or failure. 

(4) The provisions of § 86.128 of this chapter apply for vehicle transmission operation 

during highway fuel economy testing under this subpart. 

(5) Section 86.129 of this chapter applies for determination of road load power and test 

weight for highway fuel economy testing. The test weight for the testing of a certification 

vehicle will be that test weight specified by the Administrator under the provisions of part 

86 of this chapter. The test weight for a fuel economy data vehicle will be that test weight 

specified by the Administrator from the test weights covered by that vehicle 

configuration. The Administrator will base his selection of a test weight on the relative 

projected sales volumes of the various test weights within the vehicle configuration. 

(6) The HFET is designed to be performed immediately following the Federal Emission 

Test Procedure, §§ 86.127 through 86.138 of this chapter. When conditions allow, the 

tests should be scheduled in this sequence. In the event the tests cannot be scheduled 

within three hours of the Federal Emission Test Procedure (including one hour hot soak 

evaporative loss test, if applicable) the vehicle should be preconditioned as in paragraph 

(b)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable. 

(i) If the vehicle has experienced more than three hours of soak (68 °F–86 °F) since the 

completion of the Federal Emission Test Procedure, or has experienced periods of storage 

outdoors, or in environments where soak temperature is not controlled to 68 °F–86 °F, 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 209 of 339 

the vehicle must be preconditioned by operation on a dynamometer through one cycle of 

the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule, § 86.115 of this chapter. 

(ii) EPA may approve a manufacturer’s request for additional preconditioning in unusual 

circumstances 

(7) Use the following procedure to determine highway fuel economy: (i) The 

dynamometer procedure consists of two cycles of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving 

Schedule (§ 600.109-08(b)) separated by 15 seconds of idle. The first cycle of the 

Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule is driven to precondition the test vehicle and 

the second is driven for the fuel economy measurement. 

(ii) The provisions of § 86.135of this chapter, except for the overview and the allowance 

for practice runs, apply for highway fuel economy testing. 

(iii) Only one exhaust sample and one background sample are collected and analyzed for 

hydrocarbons (except diesel hydrocarbons which are analyzed continuously), carbon 

monoxide, and carbon dioxide. Methanol and formaldehyde samples (exhaust and 

dilution air) are collected and analyzed for methanol-fueled vehicles (measurement of 

methanol and formaldehyde may be omitted for 1993 through 1994 model year methanolfueled vehicles provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is used for measuring HC plus 

methanol). 

(iv) The fuel economy measurement cycle of the test includes two seconds of idle 

indexed at the beginning of the second cycle and two seconds of idle indexed at the end 

of the second cycle. 

(8) If the engine is not running at the initiation of the highway fuel economy test 

(preconditioning cycle), the start-up procedure must be according to the manufacturer's 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 210 of 339 

recommended procedures. False starts and stalls during the preconditioning cycle must 

be treated as in § 86.136 of this chapter. If the vehicle stalls during the measurement 

cycle of the highway fuel economy test, the test is voided, corrective action may be taken 

according to § 86.1834 of this chapter, and the vehicle may be rescheduled for testing. 

The person taking the corrective action shall report the action so that the test records for 

the vehicle contain a record of the action. 

(9) The following steps must be taken for each test: 

(i) Place the drive wheels of the vehicle on the dynamometer. The vehicle may be driven 

onto the dynamometer. 

(ii) Open the vehicle engine compartment cover and position the cooling fan(s) required. 

Manufacturers may request the use of additional cooling fans or variable speed fan(s) for 

additional engine compartment or under-vehicle cooling and for controlling high tire or 

brake temperatures during dynamometer operation. With prior EPA approval, 

manufacturers may perform the test with the engine compartment closed, e.g. to provide 

adequate air flow to an intercooler (through a factory installed hood scoop). Additionally, 

the Administrator may conduct fuel economy testing using the additional cooling set-up 

approved for a specific vehicle. 

(iii) Preparation of the CVS must be performed before the measurement highway driving 

cycle. 

(iv) Equipment preparation. The provisions of § 86.137-94(b)(3) through (6) of this 

chapter apply for highway fuel economy test, except that only one exhaust sample 

collection bag and one dilution air sample collection bag need to be connected to the 

sample collection systems. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 211 of 339 

(v) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule cycle 

according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified in § 600.109-08(b). 

(vi) When the vehicle reaches zero speed at the end of the preconditioning cycle, the 

driver has 17 seconds to prepare for the emission measurement cycle of the test. 

(vii) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule cycle 

according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified in § 600.109-08(b) while 

sampling the exhaust gas. 

(viii) Sampling must begin two seconds before beginning the first acceleration of the fuel 

economy measurement cycle and must end two seconds after the end of the deceleration 

to zero. At the end of the deceleration to zero speed, the roll or shaft revolutions must be 

recorded. 

(10) For alcohol-based dual fuel automobiles, the procedures of § 600.111-08(a) and (b) 

shall be performed for each of the fuels on which the vehicle is designed to operate. 

(c) US06 Testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for conducting the US06 

test are those prescribed in § 86.159 of this chapter, as applicable. 

(d) SC03 testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for conducting the SC03 

test are prescribed in §§ 86.160 and 161 of this chapter, as applicable. 

(e) Cold temperature FTP procedures. The test procedures to be followed for conducting 

the cold temperature FTP test are generally prescribed in subpart C of part 86 of this 

chapter, as applicable. For the purpose of fuel economy labeling, diesel vehicles are 

subject to cold temperature FTP testing, but are not required to measure particulate 

matter, as described in § 86.210 of this chapter. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 212 of 339 

(f) Special Test Procedures. The Administrator may prescribe test procedures, other than 

those set forth in this subpart B, for any vehicle which is not susceptible to satisfactory 

testing and/or testing results by the procedures set forth in this part. For example, special 

test procedures may be used for advanced technology vehicles, including, but not limited 

to fuel cell vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles using hydraulic energy storage, and vehicles 

equipped with hydrogen internal combustion engines. Additionally, the Administrator 

may conduct fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission testing using the special 

test procedures approved for a specific vehicle. 

32. Section 600.113-12 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.113‐12   Fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon‐related exhaust emission

calculations for FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP tests.

The Administrator will use the calculation procedure set forth in this paragraph for all 

official EPA testing of vehicles fueled with gasoline, diesel, alcohol-based or natural gas 

fuel. The calculations of the weighted fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission 

values require input of the weighted grams/mile values for total hydrocarbons (HC), 

carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2); and, additionally for methanol-fueled 

automobiles, methanol (CH3OH) and formaldehyde (HCHO); and, additionally for 

ethanol-fueled automobiles, methanol (CH3OH), ethanol (C2H5OH), acetaldehyde 

(C2H4O), and formaldehyde (HCHO); and additionally for natural gas-fueled vehicles, 

non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and methane (CH4). For manufacturers selecting the 

fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter the 

calculations of the carbon-related exhaust emissions require the input of grams/mile 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 213 of 339 

values for nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). Emissions shall be determined for the 

FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP tests. Additionally, the specific 

gravity, carbon weight fraction and net heating value of the test fuel must be determined. 

The FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP fuel economy and carbonrelated exhaust emission values shall be calculated as specified in this section. An 

example fuel economy calculation appears in Appendix II of this part. 

(a) Calculate the FTP fuel economy as follows: 

(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the FTP test for CO2, HC, and CO, and 

where applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O and CH4 as specified 

in § 86.144-94(b) of this chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as 

specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold transient phase, stabilized 

phase and hot transient phase of the FTP test. For vehicles with more than one source of 

propulsion energy, one of which is a rechargeable energy storage system, or vehicles with 

special features that the Administrator determines may have a rechargeable energy 

source, whose charge can vary during the test, calculate separately the grams/mile values 

for the cold transient phase, stabilized phase, hot transient phase and hot stabilized phase 

of the FTP test. 

(b) Calculate the HFET fuel economy as follows: 

(1) Calculate the mass values for the highway fuel economy test for HC, CO and CO2, 

and where applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O and CH4 as 

specified in § 86.144-94(b) of this chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties 

as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 214 of 339 

(2) Calculate the grams/mile values for the highway fuel economy test for HC, CO and 

CO2, and where applicable CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O and CH4 by 

dividing the mass values obtained in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, by the actual 

driving distance, measured in miles, as specified in § 86.135 of this chapter. 

(c) Calculate the cold temperature FTP fuel economy as follows: 

(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the cold temperature FTP test for HC, 

CO and CO2, and where applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O and 

CH4 as specified in § 86.144-94(b) of this chapter. For 2008 through 2010 diesel-fueled 

vehicles, HC measurement is optional. 

(2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold transient phase, stabilized 

phase and hot transient phase of the cold temperature FTP test in § 86.244 of this chapter. 

(3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(d) Calculate the US06 fuel economy as follows: 

(1) Calculate the total grams/mile values for the US06 test for HC, CO and CO2, and 

where applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O and CH4 as specified 

in § 86.144-94(b) of this chapter. 

(2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for HC, CO and CO2, and where 

applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O and CH4, for both the US06 

City phase and the US06 Highway phase of the US06 test as specified in § 86.164 of this 

chapter. In lieu of directly measuring the emissions of the separate city and highway 

phases of the US06 test according to the provisions of § 86.159 of this chapter, the 

manufacturer may, with the advance approval of the Administrator and using good 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 215 of 339 

engineering judgment, optionally analytically determine the grams/mile values for the 

city and highway phases of the US06 test. To analytically determine US06 City and 

US06 Highway phase emission results, the manufacturer shall multiply the US06 total 

grams/mile values determined in paragraph (d)(1) of this section by the estimated 

proportion of fuel use for the city and highway phases relative to the total US06 fuel use. 

The manufacturer may estimate the proportion of fuel use for the US06 City and US06 

Highway phases by using modal CO2, HC, and CO emissions data, or by using 

appropriate OBD data (e.g., fuel flow rate in grams of fuel per second), or another 

method approved by the Administrator. 

(3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(e) Calculate the SC03 fuel economy as follows: 

(1) Calculate the grams/mile values for the SC03 test for HC, CO and CO2, and where 

applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O and CH4 as specified in § 

86.144-94(b) of this chapter. 

(2) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(f) Analyze and determine fuel properties as follows:

(1) Gasoline test fuel properties shall be determined by analysis of a fuel sample taken 

from the fuel supply. A sample shall be taken after each addition of fresh fuel to the fuel 

supply. Additionally, the fuel shall be resampled once a month to account for any fuel 

property changes during storage. Less frequent resampling may be permitted if EPA 

concludes, on the basis of manufacturer-supplied data, that the properties of test fuel in 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 216 of 339 

the manufacturer's storage facility will remain stable for a period longer than one month. 

The fuel samples shall be analyzed to determine the following fuel properties: 

(i) Specific gravity measured using ASTM D 1298–99 (incorporated by reference in § 

600.011). 

(ii) Carbon weight fraction measured using ASTM D 3343–05 (incorporated by reference 

in § 600.011). 

(iii) Net heating value (Btu/lb) determined using ASTM D 3338–09 (incorporated by 

reference in § 600.011). 

(2) Methanol test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the following fuel properties: 

(i) Specific gravity using either ASTM D 1298–99 (incorporated by reference in § 

600.011) for the blend, or ASTM D 1298–99 (incorporated by reference at § 600.011) for 

the gasoline fuel component and also for the methanol fuel component and combining as 

follows. 

SG = SGg × volume fraction gasoline + SGm × volume fraction methanol. 

(ii)(A) Carbon weight fraction using the following equation: 

CWF = CWFg × MFg+ 0.375 × MFm 

Where: 

CWFg= Carbon weight fraction of gasoline portion of blend measured using ASTM D 

3343–05 (incorporated by reference in § 600.011). 

MFg=Mass fraction gasoline=(G × SGg)/(G × SGg + M × SGm) 

MFm=Mass fraction methanol=(M × SGm)/(G × SGg + M × SGm) 

Where: 

G=Volume fraction gasoline. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 217 of 339 

M=Volume fraction methanol. 

SGg=Specific gravity of gasoline as measured using ASTM D 1298–99 (incorporated by 

reference in § 600.011). 

SGm=Specific gravity of methanol as measured using ASTM D 1298–99 (incorporated 

by reference in § 600.011). 

(B) Upon the approval of the Administrator, other procedures to measure the carbon 

weight fraction of the fuel blend may be used if the manufacturer can show that the 

procedures are superior to or equally as accurate as those specified in this paragraph 

(f)(2)(ii). 

(3) Natural gas test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the following fuel properties: 

(i) Fuel composition measured using ASTM D 1945–03 (incorporated by reference in § 

600.011). 

(ii) Specific gravity measured as based on fuel composition per ASTM D 1945–03 

(incorporated by reference in § 600.011). 

(iii) Carbon weight fraction, based on the carbon contained only in the hydrocarbon 

constituents of the fuel. This equals the weight of carbon in the hydrocarbon constituents 

divided by the total weight of fuel. 

(iv) Carbon weight fraction of the fuel, which equals the total weight of carbon in the fuel 

(i.e , includes carbon contained in hydrocarbons and in CO2) divided by the total weight 

of fuel. 

(4) Ethanol test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the following fuel properties: 

(i) Specific gravity using either ASTM D 1298–99 (incorporated by reference in § 

600.011) for the blend, or ASTM D 1298–99 (incorporated by reference at § 600.011) for 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 218 of 339 

the gasoline fuel component and also for the methanol fuel component and combining as 

follows: 

SG = SGg × volume fraction gasoline + SGm × volume fraction ethanol. 

(ii)(A) Carbon weight fraction using the following equation: 

CWF = CWFg × MFg+ 0.521 × MFe 

Where: 

CWFg= Carbon weight fraction of gasoline portion of blend measured using ASTM D 

3343–05 (incorporated by reference in § 600.011). 

MFg=Mass fraction gasoline=(G × SGg)/(G × SGg+ E × SGm) 

MFe=Mass fraction ethanol=(E × SGm)/(G × SGg+ E × SGm) 

Where: 

G=Volume fraction gasoline. 

E=Volume fraction ethanol. 

SGg=Specific gravity of gasoline as measured using ASTM D 1298–99 (incorporated by 

reference in § 600.011). 

SGm=Specific gravity of ethanol as measured using ASTM D 1298–99 (incorporated by 

reference in § 600.011). 

(B) Upon the approval of the Administrator, other procedures to measure the carbon 

weight fraction of the fuel blend may be used if the manufacturer can show that the 

procedures are superior to or equally as accurate as those specified in this paragraph 

(f)(4)(ii). 

(g) Calculate separate FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP fuel 

economy and carbon-related exhaust emissions from the grams/mile values for total HC, 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 219 of 339 

CO, CO2 and, where applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O, and 

CH4, and the test fuel's specific gravity, carbon weight fraction, net heating value, and 

additionally for natural gas, the test fuel's composition. 

(1) Emission values for fuel economy calculations. The emission values (obtained per 

paragraph (a) through (e) of this section, as applicable) used in the calculations of fuel 

economy in this section shall be rounded in accordance with § 86.1837 of this chapter. 

The CO2 values (obtained per this section, as applicable) used in each calculation of fuel 

economy in this section shall be rounded to the nearest gram/mile. 

(2) Emission values for carbon-related exhaust emission calculations. (i) If the emission 

values (obtained per paragraph (a) through (e) of this section, as applicable) were 

obtained from testing with aged exhaust emission control components as allowed under § 

86.1823 of this chapter, then these test values shall be used in the calculations of carbonrelated exhaust emissions in this section. 

(ii) If the emission values (obtained per paragraph (a) through (e) of this section, as 

applicable) were not obtained from testing with aged exhaust emission control 

components as allowed under § 86.1823 of this chapter, then these test values shall be 

adjusted by the appropriate deterioration factor determined according to § 86.1823 of this 

chapter before being used in the calculations of carbon-related exhaust emissions in this 

section. For vehicles within a test group, the appropriate NMOG deterioration factor may 

be used in lieu of the deterioration factors for CH3OH, C2H5OH, and/or C2H4O 

emissions. 

(iii) The emission values determined in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section shall be 

rounded in accordance with § 86.1837 of this chapter. The CO2 values (obtained per this 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 220 of 339 

section, as applicable) used in each calculation of carbon-related exhaust emissions in 

this section shall be rounded to the nearest gram/mile. 

(iv) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as 

allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter, N2O and CH4 emission values for use in the 

calculation of carbon-related exhaust emissions in this section shall be the values 

determined according to paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(A), (B), or (C) of this section. 

(A) The FTP and HFET test values as determined for the emission data vehicle according 

to the provisions of § 86.1835 of this chapter. These values shall apply to all vehicles 

tested under this section that are included in the test group represented by the emission 

data vehicle and shall be adjusted by the appropriate deterioration factor determined 

according to § 86.1823 of this chapter before being used in the calculations of carbonrelated exhaust emissions in this section, except that in-use test data shall not be adjusted 

by a deterioration factor. 

(B) The FTP and HFET test values as determined according to testing conducted under 

the provisions of this subpart. These values shall be adjusted by the appropriate 

deterioration factor determined according to § 86.1823 of this chapter before being used 

in the calculations of carbon-related exhaust emissions in this section, except that in-use 

test data shall not be adjusted by a deterioration factor. 

(C) For the 2012 through 2014 model years only, manufacturers may use an assigned 

value of 0.010 g/mi for N2O FTP and HFET test values. This value is not required to be 

adjusted by a deterioration factor. 

(3) The specific gravity and the carbon weight fraction (obtained per paragraph (f) of this 

section) shall be recorded using three places to the right of the decimal point. The net 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 221 of 339 

heating value (obtained per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be recorded to the nearest 

whole Btu/lb. 

(4) For the purpose of determining the applicable in-use CO2 exhaust emission standard 

under § 86.1818 of this chapter, the combined city/highway carbon-related exhaust 

emission value for a vehicle subconfiguration is calculated by arithmetically averaging 

the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway carbon-related exhaust emission values, as 

determined in § 600.113-12(a) and (b) of this section for the subconfiguration, weighted 

0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and rounded to the nearest tenth of a gram per mile. 

(h)(1) For gasoline-fueled automobiles tested on a test fuel specified in § 86.113 of this 

chapter, the fuel economy in miles per gallon is to be calculated using the following 

equation and rounded to the nearest 0.1 miles per gallon: 

mpg = (5174 × 104

 × CWF × SG)/[((CWF × HC) + (0.429 × CO) + (0.273 × CO2)) × 

((0.6 × SG × NHV) + 5471)] 

Where: 

HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CWF = Carbon weight fraction of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

NHV = Net heating value by mass of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

SG = Specific gravity of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(2)(i) For 2012 and later model year gasoline-fueled automobiles tested on a test fuel 

specified in § 86.113 of this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 222 of 339 

mile is to be calculated using the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 gram 

per mile: 

CREE = (CWF/0.273×HC) + (1.571×CO) + CO2

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emissions as defined in § 600.002. 

HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CWF = Carbon weight fraction of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as 

allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams 

per mile for 2012 and later model year gasoline-fueled automobiles tested on a test fuel 

specified in § 86.113 of this chapter is to be calculated using the following equation and 

rounded to the nearest 1 gram per mile: 

CREE = [(CWF/0.273)×NMHC] + (1.571×CO) + CO2 + (298×N2O) + (25×CH4) 

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emissions as defined in § 600.002-08. 

NMHC = Grams/mile NMHC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

N2O= Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CWF = Carbon weight fraction of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 223 of 339 

(i)(1) For diesel-fueled automobiles, calculate the fuel economy in miles per gallon of 

diesel fuel by dividing 2778 by the sum of three terms and rounding the quotient to the 

nearest 0.1 mile per gallon: 

(i)(A) 0.866 multiplied by HC (in grams/miles as obtained in paragraph (g) of this 

section), or 

(B) Zero, in the case of cold FTP diesel tests for which HC was not collected, as 

permitted in § 600.113–08(c); 

(ii) 0.429 multiplied by CO (in grams/mile as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section); 

and 

(iii) 0.273 multiplied by CO2 (in grams/mile as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section). 

(2)(i) For 2012 and later model year diesel-fueled automobiles, the carbon-related 

exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to be calculated using the following equation and 

rounded to the nearest 1 gram per mile: 

CREE = (3.172×HC) + (1.571×CO) + CO2

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emissions as defined in § 600.002-08. 

HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2= Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as 

allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams 

per mile for 2012 and later model year diesel-fueled automobiles is to be calculated using 

the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 gram per mile: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 224 of 339 

CREE = (3.172×NMHC) + (1.571×CO) + CO2 + (298×N2O) + (25×CH4) 

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emissions as defined in § 600.002-08. 

NMHC = Grams/mile NMHC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

N2O= Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(j)(1) For methanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles designed to operate on mixtures 

of gasoline and methanol, the fuel economy in miles per gallon is to be calculated using 

the following equation: 

mpg = (CWF×SG×3781.8)/((CWFexHC×HC) + (0.429×CO) + (0.273×CO2) + 

(0.375×CH3OH) + (0.400×HCHO)) 

Where: 

CWF = Carbon weight fraction of the fuel as determined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

SG = Specific gravity of the fuel as determined in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section. 

CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons = CWF as determined in 

paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section (for M100 fuel, CWFexHC= 0.866). 

HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH3OH = Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 225 of 339 

HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(2)(i) For 2012 and later model year methanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles 

designed to operate on mixtures of gasoline and methanol, the carbon-related exhaust 

emissions in grams per mile is to be calculated using the following equation and rounded 

to the nearest 1 gram per mile: 

CREE = (CWFexHC/0.273×HC) + (1.571×CO) + (1.374×CH3OH) + (1.466×HCHO) + 

CO2

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in § 600.002-08. 

CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons = CWF as determined in 

paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section (for M100 fuel, CWFexHC= 0.866). 

HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH3OH = Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as 

allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams 

per mile for 2012 and later model year methanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles 

designed to operate on mixtures of gasoline and methanol is to be calculated using the 

following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 gram per mile: 

CREE = [(CWFexHC/0.273)×NMHC] + (1.571×CO) + (1.374×CH3OH) + (1.466×HCHO) 

+ CO2 + (298×N2O) + (25×CH4) 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 226 of 339 

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in § 600.002-08. 

CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons = CWF as determined in 

paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section (for M100 fuel, CWFexHC = 0.866). 

NMHC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH3OH = Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

N2O = Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(k)(1) For automobiles fueled with natural gas, the fuel economy in miles per gallon of 

natural gas is to be calculated using the following equation: 

( )( )( ) ( ) ( ) NMHC NG

NGHC NG

e CH CWF NMHC CO COCO

CWF D

mpg

4 22

/

749.0 429.0 273.0

5.121

+× −×+×+×

× × =

Where: 

mpge=miles per gasoline gallon equivalent of natural gas. 

CWFHC/NG=carbon weight fraction based on the hydrocarbon constituents in the natural 

gas fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

DNG=density of the natural gas fuel [grams/ft3

 at 68 °F (20 °C) and 760 mm Hg (101.3 

kPa)] pressure as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 227 of 339 

CH4, NMHC, CO, and CO2 = weighted mass exhaust emissions [grams/mile] for 

methane, non-methane HC, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide as calculated in § 

600.113. 

CWFNMHC = carbon weight fraction of the non-methane HC constituents in the fuel as 

determined from the speciated fuel composition per paragraph (f)(3) of this section. 

CO2NG = grams of carbon dioxide in the natural gas fuel consumed per mile of travel. 

CO2NG = FCNG × DNG × WFCO2

Where: 

( )( ) ( ) ( )

NG NG

4 NMHC 2

NG DCWF

CH0.749 CWF NMHC CO0.429 CO0.273 FC

×

+× × + × + × =

= mileper consumed fuel gas natural offeet cubic

Where: 

CWFNG = the carbon weight fraction of the natural gas fuel as calculated in paragraph (f) 

of this section. 

WFCO2 = weight fraction carbon dioxide of the natural gas fuel calculated using the mole 

fractions and molecular weights of the natural gas fuel constituents per ASTM D 1945–

03 (incorporated by reference in § 600.011). 

(2)(i) For automobiles fueled with natural gas, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in 

grams per mile is to be calculated for 2012 and later model year vehicles using the 

following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 gram per mile: 

CREE = 2.743×CH4 + CWFNMHC/0.273×NMHC + 1.571×CO + CO2

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in § 600.002-08. 

CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 228 of 339 

NMHC = Grams/mile NMHC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CWFNMHC = carbon weight fraction of the non-methane HC constituents in the fuel as 

determined from the speciated fuel composition per paragraph (f)(3) of this section. 

(ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as 

allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams 

per mile for 2012 and later model year automobiles fueled with natural gas is to be 

calculated using the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 gram per mile: 

CREE = (25×CH4)+ [(CWFNMHC/0.273)×NMHC] + (1.571×CO) + CO2 + (298×N2O) 

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in § 600.002-08. 

CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

NMHC = Grams/mile NMHC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CWFNMHC = carbon weight fraction of the non-methane HC constituents in the fuel as 

determined from the speciated fuel composition per paragraph (f)(3) of this section. 

N2O = Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

 (l)(1) For ethanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles designed to operate on mixtures 

of gasoline and ethanol, the fuel economy in miles per gallon is to be calculated using the 

following equation: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 229 of 339 

mpg = (CWF × SG × 3781.8)/((CWFexHC× HC) + (0.429 × CO) + (0.273 × CO2) + (0.375 

× CH3OH) + (0.400 × HCHO) + (0.521 × C2H5OH) + (0.545 × C2H4O)) 

Where: 

CWF = Carbon weight fraction of the fuel as determined in paragraph (f)(4) of this 

section. 

SG = Specific gravity of the fuel as determined in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. 

CWFexHC= Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons = CWF as determined in 

paragraph (f)(4) of this section. 

HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH3OH = Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

C2H5OH = Grams/mile C2H5OH (ethanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

C2H4O = Grams/mile C2H4O (acetaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

(2)(i) For 2012 and later model year ethanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles 

designed to operate on mixtures of gasoline and ethanol, the carbon-related exhaust 

emissions in grams per mile is to be calculated using the following equation and rounded 

to the nearest 1 gram per mile: 

CREE = (CWFexHC/0.273×HC) + (1.571×CO) + (1.374×CH3OH) + (1.466×HCHO) + 

(1.911×C2H5OH) + (1.998×C2H4O) + CO2

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in § 600.002-08. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 230 of 339 

CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons = CWF as determined in 

paragraph (f)(4) of this section. 

HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH3OH = Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

C2H5OH = Grams/mile C2H5OH (ethanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

C2H4O = Grams/mile C2H4O (acetaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

(ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as 

allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams 

per mile for 2012 and later model year ethanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles 

designed to operate on mixtures of gasoline and ethanol is to be calculated using the 

following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 gram per mile: 

CREE = [(CWFexHC/0.273)×NMHC] + (1.571×CO) + (1.374×CH3OH) + (1.466×HCHO) 

+ (1.911×C2H5OH) + (1.998×C2H4O) + CO2 + (298×N2O) + (25×CH4) 

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in § 600.002-08. 

CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons = CWF as determined in 

paragraph (f)(4) of this section. 

NMHC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 231 of 339 

CH3OH = Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

C2H5OH = Grams/mile C2H5OH (ethanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

C2H4O = Grams/mile C2H4O (acetaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

N2O= Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH4= Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(m) Manufacturers shall determine CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions 

for electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles according to 

the provisions of this paragraph (m). Subject to the limitations on the number of vehicles 

produced and delivered for sale as described in § 86.1866 of this chapter, the 

manufacturer may be allowed to use a value of 0 grams/mile to represent the emissions of 

fuel cell vehicles and the proportion of electric operation of a electric vehicles and plugin hybrid electric vehicles that is derived from electricity that is generated from sources 

that are not onboard the vehicle, as described in paragraphs (m)(1) through (3) of this 

section. For purposes of labeling under this part, the CO2 emissions for electric vehicles 

shall be 0 grams per mile. Similarly, the CO2 emissions for plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles shall be 0 grams per mile for the proportion of electric operation that is derived 

from electricity that is generated from sources that are not onboard the vehicle. 

(1) For 2012 and later model year electric vehicles, but not including fuel cell vehicles, 

the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to be calculated using the 

following equation and rounded to the nearest one gram per mile: 

CREE = CREEUP - CREEGAS

Where: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 232 of 339 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in § 600.002, which 

may be set equal to zero for eligible 2012 through 2016 model year electric vehicles for a 

certain number of vehicles produced and delivered for sale as described in § 86.1866-

12(a) of this chapter. 

CREEUP = 0.7670 × EC, and 

CREEGAS = 0.2485 × TargetCO2, 

Where: 

EC = The vehicle energy consumption in watt-hours per mile, determined according to 

procedures established by the Administrator under § 600.111-08(f). 

TargetCO2 = The CO2 Target Value determined according to § 86.1818 of this chapter 

for passenger automobiles and light trucks, respectively. 

(2) For 2012 and later model year plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the carbon-related 

exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to be calculated using the following equation and 

rounded to the nearest one gram per mile: 

CREE = CREECD + CREECS, 

Where: 

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in § 600.002-08. 

CREECS = The carbon-related exhaust emissions determined for charge-sustaining 

operation according to procedures established by the Administrator under § 600.111-

08(f); and 

CREECD = (ECF × CREECDEC) + [(1-ECF) × CREECDGAS] 

Where: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 233 of 339 

CREECD = The carbon-related exhaust emissions determined for charge-depleting 

operation determined according to the provisions of this section for the applicable fuel 

and according to procedures established by the Administrator under § 600.111-08(f); 

CREECDEC = The carbon-related exhaust emissions determined for electricity 

consumption during charge-depleting operation, which shall be determined using the 

method specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this section and according to procedures 

established by the Administrator under § 600.111-08(f), and which may be set equal to 

zero for a certain number of 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles produced and 

delivered for sale as described in § 86.1866 of this chapter; 

CREECDGAS = The carbon-related exhaust emissions determined for charge-depleting 

operation determined according to the provisions of this section for the applicable fuel 

and according to procedures established by the Administrator under § 600.111-08(f); and 

ECF = Electricity consumption factor as determined by the Administrator under § 

600.111-08(f). 

(3) For 2012 and later model year fuel cell vehicles, the carbon-related exhaust 

emissions in grams per mile shall be calculated using the method specified in paragraph 

(m)(1) of this section, except that CREEUP shall be determined according to procedures 

established by the Administrator under § 600.111-08(f). As described in § 86.1866 of this 

chapter the value of CREE may be set equal to zero for a certain number of 2012 through 

2016 model year fuel cell vehicles. 

(n) Equations for fuels other than those specified in paragraphs (h) through (l) of this 

section may be used with advance EPA approval. Alternate calculation methods for fuel 

economy and carbon-related exhaust emissions may be used in lieu of the methods 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 234 of 339 

described in this section if shown to yield equivalent or superior results and if approved 

in advance by the Administrator. 

33. A new § 600.114-12 is added to read as follows: 

§ 600.114‐12  Vehicle‐specific 5‐cycle fuel economy and carbon‐related exhaust

emission calculations.

Paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section apply to data used for fuel economy labeling 

under subpart D of this part. Paragraphs (d) through (f) of this section are used to 

calculate 5-cycle CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emission values for the purpose of 

determining optional credits for CO2-reducing technologies under § 86.1866 of this 

chapter. 

 (a) City fuel economy. For each vehicle tested under § 600.010(c)(i) and (ii), determine 

the 5-cycle city fuel economy using the following equation: 

Where: 

Where: 

Where: 

Bag Y FEX= the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during the specified bag of the 

FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 °F or 20 °F, 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 235 of 339 

and, 

Where: 

US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the “city” portion of the US06 

test, 

HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test, 

SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test. 

(b) Highway fuel economy. (1) For each vehicle tested under § 600.010–08(a) and 

(c)(1)(ii)(B), determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy using the following equation: 

Where: 

Where: 

and, 

Where: 

US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the highway portion of the 

US06 test, 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 236 of 339 

HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the HFET test, 

SC03 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the SC03 test. 

(2) If the condition specified in § 600.115–08(b)(2)(iii)(B) is met, in lieu of using the 

calculation in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the manufacturer may optionally determine 

the highway fuel economy using the following modified 5-cycle equation which utilizes 

data from FTP, HFET, and US06 tests, and applies mathematic adjustments for Cold FTP 

and SC03 conditions: 

(i) Perform a US06 test in addition to the FTP and HFET tests. 

(ii) Determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy according to the following formula: 

Where: 

Where: 

Bag y FE75= the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during the specified bag of the 

FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 °F. 

Where: 

US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the highway portion of the 

US06 test. 

HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 237 of 339 

US06 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the entire US06 test. 

(c) Fuel economy calculations for hybrid electric vehicles. Under the requirements of § 

86.1811, hybrid electric vehicles are subject to California test methods which require FTP 

emission sampling for the 75 °F FTP test over four phases (bags) of the UDDS (coldstart, transient, warm-start, transient). Optionally, these four phases may be combined 

into two phases (phases 1 + 2 and phases 3 + 4). Calculations for these sampling methods 

follow. 

(1) Four-bag FTP equations. If the 4-bag sampling method is used, manufacturers may 

use the equations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to determine city and highway 

fuel economy estimates. If this method is chosen, it must be used to determine both city 

and highway fuel economy. Optionally, the following calculations may be used, provided 

that they are used to determine both city and highway fuel economy: 

(i) City fuel economy. 

Where: 

Where: 

and 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 238 of 339 

Where: 

BagYXFE = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during the specified bag Y of 

the FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature X of 75 °F or 20 °F. 

US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the city portion of the US06 test. 

SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test. 

(ii) Highway fuel economy. 

Where: 

Where: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 239 of 339 

Where: 

US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the Highway portion of the 

US06 test, 

HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test, 

SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test. 

(2) Two-bag FTP equations. If the 2-bag sampling method is used for the 75 °F FTP test, 

it must be used to determine both city and highway fuel economy. The following 

calculations must be used to determine both city and highway fuel economy: 

(i) City fuel economy. 

Where: 

Where: 

Where: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 240 of 339 

Bag y FE20= the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the 20 

°F FTP test. 

Bag x/y FEX= fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during combined phases 1 and 2 

or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 °F. 

Where: 

US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the city portion of the US06 test, 

SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test. 

Bag x/y FEX= fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during combined phases 1 and 2 

or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 °F. 

(ii) Highway fuel economy. 

Where: 

Where: 

and 

and 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 241 of 339 

Where: 

US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the city portion of the US06 

test, 

SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test. 

Bag y FE20= the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the 20 

°F FTP test. 

Bag x/y FEX= fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 

and 4 of the FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 °F. 

(3) For hybrid electric vehicles using the modified 5-cycle highway calculation in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the equation in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 

applies except that the equation for Start Fuel75will be replaced with one of the following: 

(i) The equation for Start Fuel75for hybrids tested according to the 4-bag FTP is: 

(ii) The equation for Start Fuel75for hybrids tested according to the 2-bag FTP is: 

(d) City CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions. For each vehicle tested, 

determine the 5-cycle city CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions using the 

following equation: 

(1) CityCREE 0.905 ×= ( ) StartCREE + RunningCRE E

Where: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 242 of 339 

(i) StartCREE = 

( )⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ × ×+

×

4.1

0.76 StartCREE 0.24 StartCREE 0.33 75 20

Where: 

( ) CREEStart X ×= CREE1Bag3.6 X − CREE3Bag X

Where: 

Bag Y CREEX= the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile during the 

specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 °F or 20 °F.

(ii) Running CREE = 

[ ] ( ) ( ) ( )

[ ] ( ) ( )

0.144 [ ] CREESC03 ( ) ( ) Bag30.61 CREE ( ) Bag20.39 CREE

Bag20.50.18 CREE Bag30.5 CREE

Bag20.480.82 CREE Bag30.41 CREE CREECityUS060.11

75 75

20 20

75 75

× ×− ×+

×× ×+ +

×× + × + × +

Where: 

BagYXCREE =carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over Bag Y at 

temperature X. 

US06 City CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the “city” 

portion of the US06 test. 

SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the SC03 test. 

(2) To determine the City CO2 emissions, use the appropriate CO2 grams/mile values 

instead of CREE values in the equations in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

(e) Highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions. For each vehicle 

tested, determine the 5-cycle highway carbon-related exhaust emissions using the 

following equation: 

HighwayCRE 0.905E ×= ( ) StartCREE + RunningCRE E

Where: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 243 of 339 

(1) StartCREE = 

 

( )⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ × ×+

×=

60

0.76 StartCREE 0.24 StartCREE 0.33 75 20

Where: 

( ) CREEStart X ×= CREE1Bag3.6 X − CREE3Bag X

(2) Running CREE = 

[ ] ( ) ( )

[ ] CREESC ( ) ( ) Bag CREE ( ) Bag CREE

US Highway CREE HFET CREE

03045.0 361.0 75 239.0 75

0679.0007.1 21.0

× ×− ×+

×× ×+ +

Where: 

BagYXCREE =carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over Bag Y at 

temperature X, 

US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the 

highway portion of the US06 test, 

HFET CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the HFET test, 

SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the SC03 test. 

(3) To determine the Highway CO2 emissions, use the appropriate CO2 grams/mile values 

instead of CREE values in the equations in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(f) CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emissions calculations for hybrid electric vehicles. 

Hybrid electric vehicles shall be tested according to California test methods which 

require FTP emission sampling for the 75 °F FTP test over four phases (bags) of the 

UDDS (cold-start, transient, warm-start, transient). Optionally, these four phases may be 

combined into two phases (phases 1 + 2 and phases 3 + 4). Calculations for these 

sampling methods follow. 

(1) Four-bag FTP equations. If the 4-bag sampling method is used, manufacturers may 

use the equations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to determine city and highway 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 244 of 339 

CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emissions values. If this method is chosen, it must be 

used to determine both city and highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust 

emissions. Optionally, the following calculations may be used, provided that they are 

used to determine both city and highway CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emissions 

values: 

(i) City CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions. 

CityCREE 0.905 ×= ( ) StartCREE + RunningCRE E

Where: 

(A) StartCREE = 

( )⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ × ×+

×

4.1

0.76 StartCREE 0.24 StartCREE 0.33 75 20

Where: 

(1) StartCREE75 = 

( ) ( ) × 16.3 CREEBag 75 − CREEBag + × 29.3753 CREEBag 75 − 4CREEBag 75

and 

(2) StartCREE20 = 

( ) 20 20 ×= 16.3 CREEBag − 3CREEBag

 (B) RunningCREE = 

[ ] ( ) ( ) ( )

[ ] ( ) ( )

[ ] CREESC ( ) ( ) Bag CREE ( ) Bag CREE

Bag CREE Bag CREE

Bag CREE Bag CREE CREECityUS

75 75

20 20

75 75

03144.0 361.0 439.0

25.018.0 35.0

448.082.0 341.0 0611.0

× ×− ×+

×× ×+ +

×× + × + × +

Where: 

US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the city 

portion of the US06 test. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 245 of 339 

US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in miles per gallon over the 

Highway portion of the US06 test. 

HFET CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the HFET test. 

SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the SC03 test. 

(ii) Highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions. 

HighwayCRE 0.905E ×= ( ) StartCREE + RunningCREE

Where: 

(A) StartCREE = 

( )⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ × ×+

×=

60

0.76 StartCREE 0.24 StartCREE 0.33 75 20

Where: 

( ) ( ) CREEStart 75 ×= CREE1Bag3.6 75 − CREE753Bag + × CREE2Bag3.9 75 − CREE4Bag 75

and

( ) CREEStart 20 ×= CREE1Bag3.6 20 − CREE3Bag 20

(B) RunningCREE = 

[ ] ( ) ( )

[ ] CREESC ( ) ( ) Bag CREE ( ) Bag CREE

US Highway CREE HFET CREE

75 75 03045.0 361.0 439.0

0679.0007.1 21.0

× ×− ×+

×× ×+ +

Where: 

US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the 

Highway portion of the US06 test, 

HFET CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the HFET test, 

SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the SC03 test. 

(2) Two-bag FTP equations. If the 2-bag sampling method is used for the 75 °F FTP test, 

it must be used to determine both city and highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 246 of 339 

exhaust emissions. The following calculations must be used to determine both city and 

highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions: 

(i) City CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions. 

CityCREE 0.905 ×= ( ) StartCREE + RunningCRE E

Where: 

(A) StartCREE = 

( )⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ × ×+

×=

4.1

0.76 StartCREE 0.24 StartCREE 0.33 75 20

Where: 

( ) CREEStart 75 ×= CREE1/2Bag3.6 75 − CREE3/4Bag 75

and 

( ) CREEStart 20 ×= CREE1Bag3.6 20 − CREE3Bag 20

Where: 

Bag Y FE20= the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile of fuel during Bag 1 

or Bag 3 of the 20 °F FTP test, and 

Bag X/Y FE75= carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile of fuel during 

combined phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test conducted at an ambient 

temperature of 75 °F. 

(B) RunningCREE = 

[ ] ( ) ( )

[ ] ( ) ( )

0.144 [ ] CREESC03 ( ) Bag3/4 CREE

Bag20.50.18 CREE Bag30.5 CREE

0.900.82 Bag3/4 CREE CREECityUS060.10

75

20 20

75

× −

×× ×+ +

×× + × +

Where: 

US06 City CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the city 

portion of the US06 test, and 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 247 of 339 

SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the SC03 test, 

and 

Bag X/Y FE75= carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile of fuel during 

combined phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test conducted at an ambient 

temperature of 75 °F. 

(ii) Highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions. 

HighwayCRE 0.905E ×= (StartCREE + RunningCREE)

Where: 

(A) StartCREE = 

( )⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ × ×+

×

60

0.76 StartCREE 0.24 StartCREE 0.33 75 20

Where: 

( ) 75 ×= CREE1/2Bag5.7CREEStart 75 − CREE3/4Bag 75

and 

( ) CREEStart 20 ×= CREE1Bag3.6 20 − CREE3Bag 20

(B) RunningCREE = 

[ ] ( ) ( )

0.045 [ ] CREESC03 Bag3/4 CREE

1.007 US060.79 HighwayCREE HFET0.21 CREE

× − 75

×× ×+ +

Where: 

US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the city 

portion of the US06 test, and 

SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in gram per mile over the SC03 test, and 

Bag Y FE20= the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile of fuel during Bag 1 

or Bag 3 of the 20 °F FTP test, and 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 248 of 339 

Bag X/Y FE75= carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile of fuel during phases 

1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 °F. 

(3) To determine the City and Highway CO2 emissions, use the appropriate CO2

grams/mile values instead of CREE values in the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of 

this section. 

34. Section 600.115-08 is redesignated as § 600.115-11 and is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.115‐11 Criteria for determining the fuel economy label calculation method.

This section provides the criteria to determine if the derived 5-cycle method for 

determining fuel economy label values, as specified in § 600.210–08 (a)(2) or (b)(2) or § 

600.210–12 (a)(2) or (b)(2), as applicable, may be used to determine label values. 

Separate criteria apply to city and highway fuel economy for each test group. The 

provisions of this section are optional. If this option is not chosen, or if the criteria 

provided in this section are not met, fuel economy label values must be determined 

according to the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method specified in § 600.210–08(a)(1) or 

(b)(1) or § 600.210–12(a)(1) or (b)(1), as applicable. However, dedicated alternative-fuel 

vehicles, dual fuel vehicles when operating on the alternative fuel, plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles, MDPVs, and vehicles imported by Independent Commercial Importers may use 

the derived 5-cycle method for determining fuel economy label values whether or not the 

criteria provided in this section are met. 

(a) City fuel economy criterion. (1) For each test group certified for emission compliance 

under § 86.1848 of this chapter, the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests 

determined to be official under § 86.1835 of this chapter are used to calculate the vehicle-
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 249 of 339 

specific 5-cycle city fuel economy which is then compared to the derived 5-cycle city 

fuel economy, as follows: 

(i) The vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy from the official FTP, HFET, US06, 

SC03 and Cold FTP tests for the test group is determined according to the provisions of § 

600.114–08(a) or (c) or § 600.114–12(a) or (c) and rounded to the nearest one tenth of a 

mile per gallon. 

(ii) Using the same FTP data as used in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the 

corresponding derived 5-cycle city fuel economy is calculated according to the following 

equation: 

Where: 

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator. See § 600.210–08(a)(2)(iii) or 

§ 600.210–12 (a)(2)(iii). 

City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator. See § 600.210–08(a)(2)(iii) or § 

600.210–12 (a)(2)(ii). 

FTP FE = the FTP-based city fuel economy from the official test used for certification 

compliance, determined under § 600.113–08(a), rounded to the nearest tenth. 

(2) The derived 5-cycle fuel economy value determined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section is multiplied by 0.96 and rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon. 

(3) If the vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy determined in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of 

this section is greater than or equal to the value determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, then the manufacturer may base the city fuel economy estimates for the model 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 250 of 339 

types covered by the test group on the derived 5-cycle method specified in § 600.210–

08(a)(2) or (b)(2) or § 600.210–12(a)(2) or (b)(2), as applicable. 

(b) Highway fuel economy criterion. The determination for highway fuel economy 

depends upon the outcome of the determination for city fuel economy in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section for each test group. 

(1) If the city determination for a test group made in paragraph (a)(3) of this section does 

not allow the use of the derived 5-cycle method, then the highway fuel economy values 

for all model types represented by the test group are likewise not allowed to be 

determined using the derived 5-cycle method, and must be determined according to the 

vehicle-specific 5-cycle method specified in § 600.210–08(a)(1) or (b)(1) or § 600.210–

12(a)(1) or (b)(1), as applicable. 

(2) If the city determination made in paragraph (a)(3) of this section allows the use of the 

derived 5-cycle method, a separate determination is made for the highway fuel economy 

labeling method as follows: 

(i) For each test group certified for emission compliance under § 86.1848 of this chapter, 

the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests determined to be official under § 

86.1835 of this chapter are used to calculate the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel 

economy, which is then compared to the derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy, as 

follows: 

(A) The vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy from the official FTP, HFET, 

US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests for the test group is determined according to the 

provisions of § 600.114–08(b)(1) or § 600.114–12(b)(1) and rounded to the nearest one 

tenth of a mile per gallon. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 251 of 339 

(B) Using the same HFET data as used in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this section, the 

corresponding derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy is calculated using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator. See § 600.210–

08(a)(2)(iii) or § 600.210–12(a)(2)(iii). 

Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator. See § 600.210–08(a)(2)(iii) or 

§ 600.210–12(a)(2)(iii). 

HFET FE = the HFET-based highway fuel economy determined under § 600.113–08(b), 

rounded to the nearest tenth. 

(ii) The derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy calculated in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of 

this section is multiplied by 0.95 and rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per 

gallon. 

(iii) (A) If the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy of the vehicle tested in 

paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this section is greater than or equal to the value determined in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, then the manufacturer may base the highway fuel 

economy estimates for the model types covered by the test group on the derived 5-cycle 

method specified in § 600.210–08(a)(2) or (b)(2) or § 600.210–12(a)(2) or (b)(2), as 

applicable. 

(B) If the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy determined in paragraph 

(b)(2)(i)(A) of this section is less than the value determined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 252 of 339 

section, the manufacturer may determine the highway fuel economy for the model types 

covered by the test group on the modified 5-cycle equation specified in § 600.114–

08(b)(2) or § 600.114–12(b)(2). 

(c) The manufacturer will apply the criteria in paragraph (a) and (b) of this section to 

every test group for each model year. 

(d) The tests used to make the evaluations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will be 

the procedures for official test determinations under § 86.1835. Adjustments and/or 

substitutions to the official test data may be made with advance approval of the 

Administrator. 

35. A new § 600.116-12 is added to subpart B to read as follows: 

§ 600.116‐12 Special procedures related to electric vehicles and plug‐in hybrid electric

vehicles.

(a) Determine fuel economy label values for electric vehicles as specified in §§ 600.210 

and 600.311 using the procedures of SAE J1634 (incorporated by reference in § 

600.011), with the following clarifications and modifications: 

(1) Use one of the following approaches to define end-of-test criteria for vehicles whose 

maximum speed is less than the maximum speed specified in the driving schedule, where 

the vehicle’s maximum speed is determined, to the nearest 0.1 mph, from observing the 

highest speed over the first duty cycle (FTP, HFET, etc.): 

(i) If the vehicle can follow the driving schedule within the speed tolerances specified in 

§ 86.115 of this chapter up to its maximum speed, the end-of-test criterion is based on the 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 253 of 339 

point at which the vehicle can no longer meet the specified speed tolerances up to and 

including its maximum speed. 

(ii) If the vehicle cannot follow the driving schedule within the speed tolerances specified 

in § 86.115 of this chapter up to its maximum speed, the end-of-test criterion is based on 

the following procedure: 

(A) Measure and record the vehicle’s speed (to the nearest 0.1 mph) while making a best 

effort to follow the specified driving schedule. 

(B) This recorded sequence of driving speeds becomes the driving schedule for the test 

vehicle. Apply the end-of-test criterion based on point at which the vehicle can no longer 

meet the specified speed tolerances over this new driving schedule. The driving to 

establish the new driving schedule may be done separately, or as part of the measurement 

procedure. 

(2) Soak time between repeat duty cycles (four-bag FTP, HFET, etc.) may be up to 30 

minutes. No recharging may occur during the soak time. 

(3) Recharging the vehicle’s battery must start within three hours after the end of testing. 

(4) Do not apply the C coefficient adjustment specified in Section 4.4.2. 

(5) We may approve alternate measurement procedures with respect to electric vehicles if 

they are necessary or appropriate for meeting the objectives of this part. 

(b) Determine fuel economy label values for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as specified 

in §§ 600.210 and 600.311 using the procedures of SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference 

in § 600.011), with the following clarifications and modifications: 

(1) Calculate a composite value for fuel economy and CO2 emissions representing 

combined operation during charge-deplete and charge-sustain operation as follows: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 254 of 339 

(i) Apply the following utility factors except as specified in this paragraph (b)(1): 

Table 1 of § 600.116-12—FTP Phase-Specific Utility Factors 

Urban Driving, “City” 

Phase 

Distance, 

mi Cumulative UF Seq. UF 

1 3.59 0.125 0.125 

2 7.45 0.243 0.118 

3 11.04 0.340 0.096 

4 14.9 0.431 0.091 

5 18.49 0.505 0.074 

6 22.35 0.575 0.070 

7 25.94 0.632 0.057 

8 29.8 0.685 0.054 

9 33.39 0.729 0.044 

10 37.25 0.770 0.041 

11 40.84 0.803 0.033 

12 44.7 0.834 0.031 

13 48.29 0.859 0.025 

14 52.15 0.882 0.023 

15 55.74 0.900 0.018 

16 59.6 0.917 0.017 

Table 2 of § 600.116-12—HFED Cycle-Specific Utility Factors 

 Highway Driving 

HFEDS 

Distance, 

mi Cumulative UF Seq. UF 

1 10.3 0.125 0.125 

2 20.6 0.252 0.127 

3 30.9 0.378 0.126 

4 41.2 0.500 0.121 

5 51.5 0.610 0.111 

6 61.8 0.707 0.097 

7 72.1 0.787 0.080 

(ii) You may combine phases during FTP testing. For example, you may treat the first 

7.45 miles as a single phase by adding the individual utility factors for that portion of 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 255 of 339 

driving and assigning emission levels to the combined phase. Do this consistently 

throughout a test run. 

(iii) Calculate utility factors using the following equation for vehicles whose maximum 

speed is less than the maximum speed specified in the driving schedule, where the 

vehicle’s maximum speed is determined, to the nearest 0.1 mph, from observing the 

highest speed over the first duty cycle (FTP, HFET, etc.): 

1

1 1

1

j k n

i

i ji

j i

d UF e C UF

ND −

= =

⎡ ⎤ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ =− ⎜ × ⎟− ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ∑ ∑

Where: 

UFi = the utility factor for phase i. Let UF0 = 0. 

j = a counter to identify the appropriate term in the summation (with terms numbered 

consecutively). 

k = the number of terms in the equation (see Table 3 of this section). 

di = the distance driven in phase i. 

ND = the normalized distance. Use 399 for both FTP and HFET operation. 

Cj = the coefficient for term j from the following table: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 256 of 339 

Table 3 of § 600.116-12— 

City/Highway Specific Utility Factor Coefficients 

Coefficient City Hwy 

C1 14.86 4.80 

C2 2.97 13.00 

C3 -84.05 -65.00 

C4 153.70 120.00 

C5 -43.59 -100.00 

C6 -96.94 31.00 

C7 14.47 — 

C8 91.70 — 

C9 -46.36 — 

n = the number of test phases (or bag measurements) before the vehicle reaches the endof-test criterion. 

(2) The end-of-test criterion is based on a 1 percent Net Energy Change as specified in 

Section 3.8. The Administrator may approve alternate Net Energy Change tolerances as 

specified in Section 3.9.1 or Appendix C if the 1 percent threshold is insufficient or 

inappropriate for marking the end of charge-deplete operation. 

(3) Use the vehicle’s Actual Charge-Depleting Range, Rcda, as specified in Section 6.1.3 

for evaluating the end-of-test criterion. 

(4) Measure and record AC watt-hours throughout the recharging procedure. Position the 

measurement downstream of all charging devices to account for any losses in the 

charging system. 

(5) We may approve alternate measurement procedures with respect to plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles if they are necessary or appropriate for meeting the objectives of this 

part. 

Subpart C— Procedures for Calculating Fuel Economy and Carbon‐related Exhaust

Emission Values  
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 257 of 339 

36. The heading for subpart C is revised as set forth above. 

§ 600.201‐08, § 600.201‐12, § 600.201‐86, § 600.201‐93, § 600.202‐77, § 600.203‐77, §

600.204‐77, § 600.205‐77, § 600.206‐86, § 600.206‐93, § 600.207‐86, § 600.207‐93, §

600.208‐77, § 600.209‐85, § 600.209‐95—[Removed]

37. Subpart C is amended by removing the following sections: 

§ 600.201-08 

§ 600.201-12 

§ 600.201-86 

§ 600.201-93 

§ 600.202-77 

§ 600.203-77 

§ 600.204-77 

§ 600.205-77 

§ 600.206-86 

§ 600.206-93 

§ 600.207-86 

§ 600.207-93 

§ 600.208-77 

§ 600.209-85 

§ 600.209-95 

§ 600.211-08 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 258 of 339 

38. Section 600.206-12 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.206‐12 Calculation and use of FTP‐based and HFET‐based fuel economy, CO2

emissions, and carbon‐related exhaust emission values for vehicle configurations.

(a) Fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions values 

determined for each vehicle under § 600.113-08(a) and (b) and as approved in § 600.008 

(c), are used to determine FTP-based city, HFET-based highway, and combined 

FTP/Highway-based fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission 

values for each vehicle configuration for which data are available. 

(1) If only one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy values is 

accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values, rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile 

per gallon, comprise the city and highway fuel economy values for that configuration. If 

only one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway CO2 emissions and carbonrelated exhaust emission values is accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values, 

rounded to the nearest gram per mile, comprise the city and highway CO2 emissions and 

carbon-related exhaust emission values for that configuration. 

(2) If more than one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy 

and/or carbon-related exhaust emission values are accepted for a vehicle configuration: 

(i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for which the data were 

generated using sales projections supplied in accordance with § 600.208-12(a)(3). 

(ii) Within each group of data, all fuel economy values are harmonically averaged and 

rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per gallon and all CO2 emissions and carbonrelated exhaust emission values are arithmetically averaged and rounded to the nearest 

tenth of a gram per mile in order to determine FTP-based city and HFET-based highway 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 259 of 339 

fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission values for each 

subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was tested. 

(iii) All FTP-based city fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust 

emission values and all HFET-based highway fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust 

emission values calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section are (separately for city 

and highway) averaged in proportion to the sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) 

within the vehicle configuration (as provided to the Administrator by the manufacturer) 

of vehicles of each tested subconfiguration. Fuel economy values shall be harmonically 

averaged, and CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emission values shall be 

arithmetically averaged. The resultant fuel economy values, rounded to the nearest 

0.0001 mile per gallon, are the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy 

values for the vehicle configuration. The resultant CO2 emissions and carbon-related 

exhaust emission values, rounded to the nearest tenth of a gram per mile, are the FTPbased city and HFET-based highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emission 

values for the vehicle configuration. 

(3)(i) For the purpose of determining average fuel economy under § 600.510, the 

combined fuel economy value for a vehicle configuration is calculated by harmonically 

averaging the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy values, as 

determined in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, 

and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon. A sample of this calculation appears in 

Appendix II of this part. 

(ii) For the purpose of determining average carbon-related exhaust emissions under § 

600.510, the combined carbon-related exhaust emission value for a vehicle configuration 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 260 of 339 

is calculated by arithmetically averaging the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway 

carbon-related exhaust emission values, as determined in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 

section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and rounded to the nearest tenth of gram per 

mile. 

(4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel automobiles the 

procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, shall be used to 

calculate two separate sets of FTP-based city, HFET-based highway, and combined 

values for fuel economy, CO2 emissions,and carbon-related exhaust emissions for each 

configuration. 

(i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbonrelated exhaust emission values from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test 

fuel. 

(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbonrelated exhaust emission values from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test 

fuel. 

(b) If only one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value exists for an electric 

vehicle configuration, that value, rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will 

comprise the petroleum-based fuel economy for that configuration. 

(c) If more than one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value exists for an electric 

vehicle configuration, all values for that vehicle configuration are harmonically averaged 

and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon for that configuration. 

39. A new § 600.207-12 is added to read as follows: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 261 of 339 

§ 600.207‐12   Calculation and use of vehicle‐specific 5‐cycle‐based fuel economy and

CO2 emission values for vehicle configurations.

(a) Fuel economy and CO2 emission values determined for each vehicle under § 600.114 

and as approved in § 600.008(c), are used to determine vehicle-specific 5-cycle city and 

highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values for each vehicle configuration for which 

data are available. 

(1) If only one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values is 

accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values, where fuel economy is rounded to the 

nearest tenth of a mile per gallon and the CO2 emission value in grams per mile is 

rounded to the nearest whole number, comprise the city and highway fuel economy and 

CO2 emission values for that configuration. 

(2) If more than one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission 

values are accepted for a vehicle configuration: 

(i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for which the data were 

generated using sales projections supplied in accordance with § 600.209-12(a)(3). 

(ii) Within each subconfiguration of data, all fuel economy values are harmonically 

averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per gallon in order to determine 5-

cycle city and highway fuel economy values for each subconfiguration at which the 

vehicle configuration was tested, and all CO2 emissions values are arithmetically 

averaged and rounded to the nearest tenth of gram per mile to determine 5-cycle city and 

highway CO2 emission values for each subconfiguration at which the vehicle 

configuration was tested. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 262 of 339 

(iii) All 5-cycle city fuel economy values and all 5-cycle highway fuel economy values 

calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section are (separately for city and highway) 

averaged in proportion to the sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) within the 

vehicle configuration (as provided to the Administrator by the manufacturer) of vehicles 

of each tested subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile 

per gallon, are the 5-cycle city and 5-cycle highway fuel economy values for the vehicle 

configuration. 

(iv) All 5-cycle city CO2 emission values and all 5-cycle highway CO2 emission values 

calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section are (separately for city and highway) 

averaged in proportion to the sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) within the 

vehicle configuration (as provided to the Administrator by the manufacturer) of vehicles 

of each tested subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded to the nearest 0.1 grams 

per mile, are the 5-cycle city and 5-cycle highway CO2 emission values for the vehicle 

configuration. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel automobiles the 

procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section shall be used to calculate two 

separate sets of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values for each 

configuration. 

(i) Calculate the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values from 

the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 263 of 339 

(ii)(A) Calculate the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values 

from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel, if 5-cycle testing has been 

performed. Otherwise, the procedure in § 600.210-12(a)(3) or (b)(3) applies. 

(b) If only one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value exists for an electric 

configuration, that value, rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will comprise 

the petroleum-based 5-cycle fuel economy for that configuration. 

(c) If more than one equivalent petroleum-based 5-cycle fuel economy value exists for an 

electric vehicle configuration, all values for that vehicle configuration are harmonically 

averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon for that configuration. 

40. Section 600.208-12 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.208‐12 Calculation of FTP‐based and HFET‐based fuel economy, CO2 emissions,

and carbon‐related exhaust emissions for a model type.

(a) Fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions for a base level 

are calculated from vehicle configuration fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbonrelated exhaust emissions as determined in § 600.206–12(a), (b), or (c) as applicable, for 

low-altitude tests. 

(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for sale in the State of 

California and in section 177 states are likely to exhibit significant differences in fuel 

economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions from those intended for 

sale in other states, she will calculate fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 

exhaust emissions for each base level for vehicles intended for sale in California and in 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 264 of 339 

section 177 states and for each base level for vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the 

states. 

(2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust 

emissions of certain designs otherwise included within a model type, a manufacturer may 

wish to subdivide a model type into one or more additional model types. This is 

accomplished by separating subconfigurations from an existing base level and placing 

them into a new base level. The new base level is identical to the existing base level 

except that it shall be considered, for the purposes of this paragraph, as containing a new 

basic engine. The manufacturer will be permitted to designate such new basic engines 

and base level(s) if: 

(i) Each additional model type resulting from division of another model type has a unique 

car line name and that name appears on the label and on the vehicle bearing that label; 

(ii) The subconfigurations included in the new base levels are not included in any other 

base level which differs only by basic engine (i.e., they are not included in the calculation 

of the original base level fuel economy values); and 

(iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are represented by test data in 

accordance with § 600.010(c)(1)(ii). 

(3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales projections for each car 

line/vehicle subconfiguration combination. 

(i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car line-vehicle 

subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each car line/vehicle 

subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the states if required by the Administrator 

under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 265 of 339 

(ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any model type value is 

calculated for a label value. 

(iii) The provisions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section may be satisfied by providing an 

amended application for certification, as described in § 86.1844 of this chapter. 

(4) Vehicle configuration fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust 

emissions, as determined in § 600.206–12 (a), (b) or (c), as applicable, are grouped 

according to base level. 

(i) If only one vehicle configuration within a base level has been tested, the fuel 

economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions from that vehicle 

configuration will constitute the fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 

exhaust emissions for that base level. 

(ii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has been tested, the vehicle 

configuration fuel economy values are harmonically averaged in proportion to the 

respective sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration 

and the resultant fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon; and 

the vehicle configuration CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions are 

arithmetically averaged in proportion to the respective sales fraction (rounded to the 

nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration and the resultant carbon-related exhaust 

emission value rounded to the nearest tenth of a gram per mile. 

(5) The procedure specified in paragraph (a)(1) through (4) of this section will be 

repeated for each base level, thus establishing city, highway, and combined fuel 

economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions for each base level. 

(6) [Reserved] 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 266 of 339 

(7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel automobiles, the 

procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section shall be used to calculate two 

separate sets of city, highway, and combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbonrelated exhaust emissions for each base level. 

(i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbonrelated exhaust emissions from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel. 

(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbonrelated exhaust emissions from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel. 

(b) For each model type, as determined by the Administrator, a city, highway, and 

combined fuel economy value, CO2 emission value, and a carbon-related exhaust 

emission value will be calculated by using the projected sales and values for fuel 

economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions for each base level 

within the model type. Separate model type calculations will be done based on the 

vehicle configuration fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust 

emissions as determined in § 600.206–12 (a), (b) or (c), as applicable. 

(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for sale in the State of 

California and in section 177 states are likely to exhibit significant differences in fuel 

economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions from those intended for 

sale in other states, he or she will calculate values for fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and 

carbon-related exhaust emissions for each model type for vehicles intended for sale in 

California and in section 177 states and for each model type for vehicles intended for sale 

in the rest of the states. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 267 of 339 

(2) The sales fraction for each base level is calculated by dividing the projected sales of 

the base level within the model type by the projected sales of the model type and 

rounding the quotient to the nearest 0.0001. 

(3)(i) The FTP-based city fuel economy values of the model type (calculated to the 

nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined by dividing one by a sum of terms, each of which 

corresponds to a base level and which is a fraction determined by dividing: 

(A) The sales fraction of a base level; by 

(B) The FTP-based city fuel economy value for the respective base level. 

(ii) The FTP-based city carbon-related exhaust emission value of the model type 

(calculated to the nearest gram per mile) are determined by a sum of terms, each of which 

corresponds to a base level and which is a product determined by multiplying: 

(A) The sales fraction of a base level; by 

(B) The FTP-based city carbon-related exhaust emission value for the respective base 

level. 

(iii) The FTP-based city CO2 emissions of the model type (calculated to the nearest gram 

per mile) are determined by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level 

and which is a product determined by multiplying: 

(A) The sales fraction of a base level; by 

(B) The FTP-based city CO2 emissions for the respective base level. 

(4) The procedure specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section is repeated in an analogous 

manner to determine the highway and combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and 

carbon-related exhaust emissions for the model type. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 268 of 339 

(5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel automobiles, the 

procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section shall be used to calculate two 

separate sets of city, highway, and combined fuel economy values and two separate sets 

of city, highway, and combined CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emission values for each 

model type. 

(i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbonrelated exhaust emission values from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test 

fuel. 

(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbonrelated exhaust emission values from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test 

fuel. 

41. A new § 600.209-12 is added to read as follows: 

§ 600.209‐12   Calculation of vehicle‐specific 5‐cycle fuel economy and CO2 emission

values for a model type.

(a) Base level. 5-cycle fuel economy and CO2 emission values for a base level are 

calculated from vehicle configuration 5-cycle fuel economy and CO2 emission values as 

determined in § 600.207 for low-altitude tests. 

(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for sale in the State of 

California are likely to exhibit significant differences in fuel economy and CO2 emissions 

from those intended for sale in other states, he will calculate fuel economy and CO2

emission values for each base level for vehicles intended for sale in California and for 

each base level for vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 269 of 339 

(2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions of certain designs 

otherwise included within a model type, a manufacturer may wish to subdivide a model 

type into one or more additional model types. This is accomplished by separating 

subconfigurations from an existing base level and placing them into a new base level. 

The new base level is identical to the existing base level except that it shall be 

considered, for the purposes of this paragraph, as containing a new basic engine. The 

manufacturer will be permitted to designate such new basic engines and base level(s) if: 

(i) Each additional model type resulting from division of another model type has a unique 

car line name and that name appears on the label and on the vehicle bearing that label; 

(ii) The subconfigurations included in the new base levels are not included in any other 

base level which differs only by basic engine ( i.e. , they are not included in the 

calculation of the original base level fuel economy values); and 

(iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are represented by test data in 

accordance with § 600.010(c)(ii). 

(3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales projections for each car 

line/vehicle subconfiguration combination. 

(i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car line-vehicle 

subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each car line/vehicle 

subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the states if required by the Administrator 

under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any model type value is 

calculated for a label value. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 270 of 339 

(iii) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by providing an amended 

application for certification, as described in § 86.1844 of this chapter. 

(4) 5-cycle vehicle configuration fuel economy and CO2 emission values, as determined 

in § 600.207–12(a), (b), or (c), as applicable, are grouped according to base level. 

(i) If only one vehicle configuration within a base level has been tested, the fuel economy 

and CO2 emission values from that vehicle configuration constitute the fuel economy and 

CO2 emission values for that base level. 

(ii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has been tested, the vehicle 

configuration fuel economy values are harmonically averaged in proportion to the 

respective sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration 

and the resultant fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon. 

(iii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has been tested, the 

vehicle configuration CO2 emission values are arithmetically averaged in proportion to 

the respective sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration 

and the resultant CO2 emission value rounded to the nearest 0.1 gram per mile. 

(5) The procedure specified in § 600.209–12 (a) will be repeated for each base level, thus 

establishing city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values for each base level. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel automobiles, the 

procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section shall be used to calculate two 

separate sets of city, highway, and combined fuel economy and CO2 emission values for 

each base level. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 271 of 339 

(i) Calculate the city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values from the tests 

performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel. 

(ii) If 5-cycle testing was performed on the alcohol or natural gas test fuel, calculate the 

city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values from the tests performed using 

alcohol or natural gas test fuel. 

(b) Model type. For each model type, as determined by the Administrator, city and 

highway fuel economy and CO2 emissions values will be calculated by using the 

projected sales and fuel economy and CO2 emission values for each base level within the 

model type. Separate model type calculations will be done based on the vehicle 

configuration fuel economy and CO2 emission values as determined in § 600.207, as 

applicable. 

(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for sale in the State of 

California are likely to exhibit significant differences in fuel economy and CO2 emissions 

from those intended for sale in other states, he will calculate fuel economy and CO2

emission values for each model type for vehicles intended for sale in California and for 

each model type for vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states. 

(2) The sales fraction for each base level is calculated by dividing the projected sales of 

the base level within the model type by the projected sales of the model type and 

rounding the quotient to the nearest 0.0001. 

(3)(i) The 5-cycle city fuel economy values of the model type (calculated to the nearest 

0.0001 mpg) are determined by dividing one by a sum of terms, each of which 

corresponds to a base level and which is a fraction determined by dividing: 

(A) The sales fraction of a base level; by 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 272 of 339 

(B) The 5-cycle city fuel economy value for the respective base level. 

(ii) The 5-cycle city CO2 emissions of the model type (calculated to the nearest tenth of a 

gram per mile) are determined by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base 

level and which is a product determined by multiplying: 

(A) The sales fraction of a base level; by 

(B) The 5-cycle city CO2 emissions for the respective base level. 

(4) The procedure specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section is repeated in an analogous 

manner to determine the highway and combined fuel economy and CO2 emission values 

for the model type. 

(5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel automobiles the 

procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section shall be used to calculate two 

separate sets of city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values for each model 

type. 

(i) Calculate the city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values from the tests 

performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel. 

(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy and CO2 emission values 

from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel, if 5-cycle testing was 

performed on the alcohol or natural gas test fuel. Otherwise, the procedure in § 600.210-

12(a)(3) or (b)(3) applies. 

42. Section 600.210-08 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 600.210‐08   Calculation of fuel economy values for labeling.

* * * * * 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 273 of 339 

(f) Sample calculations. An example of the calculation required in this subpart is in 

Appendix III of this part. 

43. A new § 600.210-12 is added to read as follows: 

§ 600.210‐12   Calculation of fuel economy and CO2 emission values for labeling.

(a) General labels. Except as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, fuel 

economy and CO2 emissions for general labels may be determined by one of two 

methods. The first is based on vehicle-specific model-type 5-cycle data as determined in 

§ 600.209–12(b). This method is available for all vehicles and is required for vehicles 

that do not qualify for the second method as described in § 600.115 (other than electric 

vehicles). The second method, the derived 5-cycle method, is based on fuel economy and 

CO2 emissions that are derived from vehicle-specific 5-cycle model type data as 

determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Manufacturers may voluntarily lower fuel 

economy values and raise CO2 values if they determine that the label values from any 

method are not representative of the fuel economy or CO2 emissions for that model type. 

(1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The city and highway model type fuel economy 

determined in § 600.209–12(b), rounded to the nearest mpg, and the city and highway 

model type CO2 emissions determined in § 600.209–12(b), rounded to the nearest gram 

per mile, comprise the fuel economy and CO2 emission values for general fuel economy 

labels, or, alternatively; 

(2) Derived 5-cycle labels. Derived 5-cycle city and highway label values are determined 

according to the following method: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 274 of 339 

(i)(A) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle city fuel economy using the 

following equation and coefficients determined by the Administrator: 

Where: 

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle city fuel economy data. 

City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic vehicle-specific 5-

cycle city fuel economy data. 

MT FTP FE = the model type FTP-based city fuel economy determined under § 600.208–

12(b), rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. 

(B) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle city CO2 emissions using the 

following equation and coefficients determined by the Administrator: 

2 Slope} CO FTP MT 2 − COCity cycle5 Derived = {City Intercept} +{City ×

Where: 

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle city fuel economy data. 

City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic vehicle-specific 5-

cycle city fuel economy data. 

MT FTP CO2 = the model type FTP-based city CO2 emissions determined under § 

600.208–12(b), rounded to the nearest 0.1 grams per mile. 

(ii)(A) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle highway fuel economy 

using the equation below and coefficients determined by the Administrator: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 275 of 339 

Where: 

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data. 

Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data. 

MT HFET FE = the model type highway fuel economy determined under § 600.208–

12(b), rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. 

(B) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle highway CO2 emissions using 

the equation below and coefficients determined by the Administrator: 

2 Slope} CO HFET MT 2 − Highway cycle5 Derived CO = {Highway Intercept} +{Highway ×

Where: 

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data. 

Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data. 

MT HFET CO2 = the model type highway CO2 emissions determined under § 600.208–

12(b), rounded to the nearest 0.1 grams per mile. 

(iii) Unless and until superseded by written guidance from the Administrator, the 

following intercepts and slopes shall be used in the equations in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and 

(a)(2)(ii) of this section: 

City Intercept = 0.003259. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 276 of 339 

City Slope = 1.1805. 

Highway Intercept = 0.001376. 

Highway Slope = 1.3466. 

(iv) The Administrator will periodically update the slopes and intercepts through 

guidance and will determine the model year that the new coefficients must take effect. 

The Administrator will issue guidance no later than six months prior to the earliest 

starting date of the effective model year (e.g., for 2011 models, the earliest start of the 

model year is January 2, 2010, so guidance would be issued by July 1, 2009.) Until 

otherwise instructed by written guidance from the Administrator, manufacturers must use 

the coefficients that are currently in effect. 

(3) General alternate fuel economy and CO2 emissions label values for dual fuel vehicles. 

(i)(A) City and Highway fuel economy label values for dual fuel alcohol-based and 

natural gas vehicles when using the alternate fuel are separately determined by the 

following calculation: 

Where: 

FEalt= The unrounded FTP-based model-type city or HFET-based model-type highway 

fuel economy from the alternate fuel, as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(ii). 

5cycle FEgas= The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 5-cycle model-type city or 

highway fuel economy, as determined in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section. 

FEgas= The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based model type highway fuel economy 

from gasoline (or diesel), as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(i). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 277 of 339 

The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate fuel label value for dual 

fuel vehicles. 

(B) City and Highway CO2 label values for dual fuel alcohol-based and natural gas 

vehicles when using the alternate fuel are separately determined by the following 

calculation: 

gas

gas

alt alt CO

COcycle CODerived CO

2

25

22 ×=

Where: 

CO2alt= The unrounded FTP-based model-type city or HFET-based model-type CO2

emissions value from the alternate fuel, as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(ii). 

5cycle CO2gas= The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 5-cycle model-type city or 

highway CO2 emissions value, as determined in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section. 

CO2gas= The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based model type highway CO2

emissions value from gasoline (or diesel), as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(i). 

The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate fuel CO2 emissions label 

value for dual fuel vehicles. 

(ii) Optionally, if complete 5-cycle testing has been performed using the alternate fuel, 

the manufacturer may choose to use the alternate fuel label city or highway fuel economy 

and CO2 emission values determined in § 600.209–12(b)(5)(ii), rounded to the nearest 

whole number. 

(4) General alternate fuel economy and CO2 emissions label values for electric vehicles. 

Determine FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy label values for 

electric vehicles as described in § 600.116. Convert W-hour/mile results to miles per 

kW-hr and miles per gasoline gallon equivalent gallon. CO2 label information is based 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 278 of 339 

on tailpipe emissions only, so CO2 emissions from electric vehicles are assumed to be 

zero. 

(b) Specific Labels. Except as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, fuel 

economy and CO2 emissions for specific labels may be determined by one of two 

methods. The first is based on vehicle-specific configuration 5-cycle data as determined 

in § 600.207. This method is available for all vehicles and is required for vehicles that do 

not qualify for the second method as described in § 600.115 (other than electric vehicles). 

The second method, the derived 5-cycle method, is based on fuel economy and CO2

emissions that are derived from vehicle-specific 5-cycle configuration data as determined 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Manufacturers may voluntarily lower fuel economy 

values and raise CO2 values if they determine that the label values from either method are 

not representative of the fuel economy or CO2 emissions for that model type. 

(1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The city and highway configuration fuel economy 

determined in § 600.207, rounded to the nearest mpg, and the city and highway 

configuration CO2 emissions determined in § 600.207, rounded to the nearest gram per 

mile, comprise the fuel economy and CO2 emission values for specific fuel economy 

labels, or, alternatively; 

(2) Derived 5-cycle labels. Specific city and highway label values from derived 5-cycle 

are determined according to the following method: 

(i)(A) Determine the derived five-cycle city fuel economy of the configuration using the 

equation below and coefficients determined by the Administrator: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 279 of 339 

Where: 

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle city fuel economy data. 

City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic vehicle-specific 5-

cycle city fuel economy data. 

Config FTP FE = the configuration FTP-based city fuel economy determined under § 

600.206, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. 

(B) Determine the derived five-cycle city CO2 emissions of the configuration using the 

equation below and coefficients determined by the Administrator: 

2 Slope} CO FTP Config 2 − COCity cycle5 Derived = {City Intercept} +{City ×

Where: 

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle city fuel economy data. 

City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic vehicle-specific 5-

cycle city fuel economy data. 

Config FTP CO2 = the configuration FTP-based city CO2 emissions determined under § 

600.206, rounded to the nearest 0.1 grams per mile. 

(ii)(A) Determine the derived five-cycle highway fuel economy of the configuration 

using the equation below and coefficients determined by the Administrator: 

Where: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 280 of 339 

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data. 

Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data. 

Config HFET FE = the configuration highway fuel economy determined under § 

600.206, rounded to the nearest tenth. 

(B) Determine the derived five-cycle highway CO2 emissions of the configuration using 

the equation below and coefficients determined by the Administrator: 

2 Slope} CO HFET Config 2 − Highway cycle5 Derived CO = {Highway Intercept} +{Highway ×

Where: 

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data. 

Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data. 

Config HFET CO2 = the configuration highway fuel economy determined under § 

600.206, rounded to the nearest tenth. 

(iii) The slopes and intercepts of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section apply. 

(3) Specific alternate fuel economy and CO2 emissions label values for dual fuel vehicles.

(i)(A) Specific city and highway fuel economy label values for dual fuel alcohol-based 

and natural gas vehicles when using the alternate fuel are separately determined by the 

following calculation: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 281 of 339 

Where: 

FEalt= The unrounded FTP-based configuration city or HFET-based configuration 

highway fuel economy from the alternate fuel, as determined in § 600.206. 

5cycle FEgas= The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 5-cycle configuration city or 

highway fuel economy as determined in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. 

FEgas= The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based configuration highway fuel 

economy from gasoline, as determined in § 600.206. 

The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate fuel label value for dual 

fuel vehicles. 

(B) Specific city and highway CO2 emission label values for dual fuel alcohol-based and 

natural gas vehicles when using the alternate fuel are separately determined by the 

following calculation: 

gas

gas

alt alt CO

COcycle CODerived CO

2

25

22 ×=

Where: 

CO2alt= The unrounded FTP-based configuration city or HFET-based configuration 

highway CO2 emissions value from the alternate fuel, as determined in § 600.206. 

5cycle CO2gas= The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 5-cycle configuration city or 

highway CO2 emissions value as determined in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. 

CO2gas= The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based configuration highway CO2

emissions value from gasoline, as determined in § 600.206. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 282 of 339 

The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate fuel CO2 emissions label 

value for dual fuel vehicles. 

(ii) Optionally, if complete 5-cycle testing has been performed using the alternate fuel, 

the manufacturer may choose to use the alternate fuel label city or highway fuel economy 

and CO2 emission values determined in § 600.207–12(a)(4)(ii), rounded to the nearest 

whole number. 

(4) Specific alternate fuel economy and CO2 emissions label values for electric vehicles. 

Determine FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy label values for 

electric vehicles as described in § 600.116. Determine these values by running the 

appropriate repeat test cycles. Convert W-hour/mile results to miles per kW-hr and miles 

per gasoline gallon equivalent. CO2 label information is based on tailpipe emissions 

only, so CO2 emissions from electric vehicles are assumed to be zero. 

(c) Calculating combined fuel economy. (1) For the purposes of calculating the combined 

fuel economy for a model type, to be used in displaying on the label and for determining 

annual fuel costs under subpart D of this part, the manufacturer shall use one of the 

following procedures: 

(i) For gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, and natural gas-fueled automobiles, 

and for dual fuel automobiles operated on gasoline or diesel fuel, harmonically average 

the unrounded city and highway fuel economy values, determined in paragraphs (a)(1) or 

(2) of this section and (b)(1) or (2) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, 

and round to the nearest whole mpg. (An example of this calculation procedure appears 

in Appendix II of this part). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 283 of 339 

(ii) For alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles operated on the alternate 

fuel, harmonically average the unrounded city and highway values from the tests 

performed using the alternative fuel as determined in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) of this 

section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and round to the nearest whole mpg. 

(iii) For electric vehicles, calculate the combined fuel economy, in miles per kW-hr and 

miles per gasoline gallon equivalent, by harmonically averaging the unrounded city and 

highway values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively. Round miles per kW-hr to the 

nearest 0.001 and round miles per gallon gasoline equivalent to the nearest whole 

number. 

(iv) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, calculate a combined fuel economy value, in 

miles per gasoline gallon equivalent as follows: 

(A) Determine city and highway fuel economy values for vehicle operation after the 

battery has been fully discharged (“gas only operation” or “charge-sustaining mode”) as 

described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(B) Determine city and highway fuel economy values for vehicle operation starting with 

a full battery charge (“all-electric operation” or “gas plus electric operation”, as 

appropriate, or “charge-depleting mode”) as described in § 600.116-12. For battery 

energy, convert W-hour/mile results to miles per gasoline gallon equivalent or miles per 

diesel gallon equivalent, as applicable. Note that you must also convert battery-based 

fuel economy values to miles per kW-hr for calculating annual fuel cost as described in § 

600.311-12. 

(C) Calculate a composite city fuel economy value and a composite highway fuel 

economy value by combining the separate results for battery and engine operation using 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 284 of 339 

the procedures described in § 600.116-12). Apply the derived 5-cycle adjustment to 

these composite values. Use these values to calculate the vehicle’s combined fuel 

economy as described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. 

(2) For the purposes of calculating the combined CO2 emissions value for a model type, 

to be used in displaying on the label under subpart D of this part, the manufacturer shall: 

(i) For gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, and natural gas-fueled automobiles, 

and for dual fuel automobiles operated on gasoline or diesel fuel, arithmetically average 

the unrounded city and highway values, determined in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this 

section and (b)(1) or (2) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and round to 

the nearest whole gram per mile; or 

(ii) For alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles operated on the alternate 

fuel, arithmetically average the unrounded city and highway CO2 emission values from 

the tests performed using the alternative fuel as determined in paragraphs (a)(3) and 

(b)(3) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and round to the nearest whole 

gram per mile. 

(iii) CO2 label information is based on tailpipe emissions only, so CO2 emissions from 

electric vehicles are assumed to be zero. 

(iv) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, calculate combined CO2 emissions as follows: 

(A) Determine city and highway CO2 emission rates for vehicle operation after the 

battery has been fully discharged (“gas only operation” or “charge-sustaining mode”) as 

described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(B) Determine city and highway CO2 emission rates for vehicle operation starting with a 

full battery charge (“all-electric operation” or “gas plus electric operation”, as 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 285 of 339 

appropriate, or “charge-depleting mode”) as described in § 600.116-12. Note that CO2

label information is based on tailpipe emissions only, so CO2 emissions from electric 

vehicles are assumed to be zero. 

(C) Calculate a composite city CO2 emission rate and a composite CO2 emission rate by 

combining the separate results for battery and engine operation using the procedures 

described in § 600.116-12. Use these values to calculate the vehicle’s combined fuel 

economy as described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. 

(d) Calculating combined fuel economy and CO2 emissions. (1) If the criteria in § 

600.115–11(a) are met for a model type, both the city and highway fuel economy and 

CO2 emissions values must be determined using the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method. If 

the criteria in § 600.115–11(b) are met for a model type, the city fuel economy and CO2

emissions values may be determined using either method, but the highway fuel economy 

and CO2 emissions values must be determined using the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method 

(or modified 5-cycle method as allowed under § 600.114–12(b)(2)). 

(2) If the criteria in § 600.115 are not met for a model type, the city and highway fuel 

economy and CO2 emission label values must be determined by using the same method, 

either the derived 5-cycle or vehicle-specific 5-cycle. 

(3) Manufacturers may use any of the following methods for determining 5-cycle values 

for fuel economy and CO2 emissions for electric vehicles: 

(i) Generate 5-cycle data as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(ii) Decrease fuel economy values by 30 percent and increase CO2 emission values by 30 

percent relative to data generated from 2-cycle testing. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 286 of 339 

(iii) Manufacturers may ask the Administrator to approve adjustment factors for deriving 

5-cycle fuel economy results from 2-cycle test data based on operating data from their inuse vehicles. Such data should be collected from multiple vehicles with different drivers 

over a range of representative driving routes and conditions. The Administrator may 

approve such an adjustment factor for any of the manufacturer’s vehicle models that are 

properly represented by the collected data. 

(e) Fuel economy values and other information for advanced technology vehicles. (1) The 

Administrator may prescribe an alternative method of determining the city and highway 

model type fuel economy and CO2 emission values for general, unique or specific fuel 

economy labels other than those set forth in this subpart C for advanced technology 

vehicles including, but not limited to battery electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, hybrid 

electric vehicles using hydraulic energy storage, and vehicles equipped with hydrogen 

internal combustion engines. 

(2) For advanced technology vehicles, the Administrator may prescribe special methods 

for determining information other than fuel economy that is required to be displayed on 

fuel economy labels as specified in § 600.302-12(e). 

(f) Sample calculations. An example of the calculation required in this subpart is in 

Appendix III of this part. 

Subpart D—Fuel Economy Labeling

44. The heading for subpart D is revised as set forth above. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 287 of 339 

§ 600.301‐08, § 600.301‐12, § 600.301‐86, § 600.301‐95, § 600.302‐77, § 600.303‐77, §

600.304‐77, § 600.305‐77, § 600.306‐86, § 600.307‐86, § 600.307‐95, § 600.310‐86, §

600.311‐86, § 600.313‐86, § 600.314‐01, § 600.314‐86, § 600.315‐82—[Removed]

45. Subpart D is amended by removing the following sections: 

§ 600.301-08 

§ 600.301-12 

§ 600.301-86 

§ 600.301-95 

§ 600.302-77 

§ 600.303-77 

§ 600.304-77 

§ 600.305-77 

§ 600.306-86 

§ 600.307-86 

§ 600.307-95 

§ 600.310-86 

§ 600.311-86 

§ 600.313-86 

§ 600.314-01 

§ 600.314-86 

§ 600.315-82 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 288 of 339 

46. Redesignate specific sections in subpart D as follows: 

old section new section

600.306‐08 600.301‐08

600.307‐08 600.302‐08

600.312‐86 600.312‐08

600.313‐01 600.313‐08

600.316‐78 600.316‐08

47. The redesignated § 600.301-08 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.301‐08   Labeling requirements.

(a) Prior to being offered for sale, each manufacturer shall affix or cause to be affixed and 

each dealer shall maintain or cause to be maintained on each automobile: 

(1) A general fuel economy label (initial, or updated as required in § 600.314) as 

described in § 600.303 or: 

(2) A specific label, for those automobiles manufactured or imported before the date that 

occurs 15 days after general labels have been determined by the manufacturer, as 

described in § 600.210–08(b) or § 600.210–12(b). 

(i) If the manufacturer elects to use a specific label within a model type (as defined in § 

600.002, he shall also affix specific labels on all automobiles within this model type, 

except on those automobiles manufactured or imported before the date that labels are 

required to bear range values as required by paragraph (b) of this section, or determined 

by the Administrator, or as permitted under § 600.310. 

(ii) If a manufacturer elects to change from general to specific labels or vice versa within 

a model type, the manufacturer shall, within five calendar days, initiate or discontinue as 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 289 of 339 

applicable, the use of specific labels on all vehicles within a model type at all facilities 

where labels are affixed. 

(3) For any vehicle for which a specific label is requested which has a combined 

FTP/HFET-based fuel economy value, as determined in § 600.513, at or below the 

minimum tax-free value, the following statement must appear on the specific label: 

“[Manufacturer's name] may have to pay IRS a Gas Guzzler Tax on this vehicle because 

of the low fuel economy.” 

(4)(i) At the time a general fuel economy value is determined for a model type, a 

manufacturer shall, except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, relabel, or 

cause to be relabeled, vehicles which: 

(A) Have not been delivered to the ultimate purchaser, and 

(B) Have a combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value (as determined in 

§ 600.208–08(b) or § 600.208-12(b) of 0.1 mpg or more below the lowest fuel economy 

value at which a Gas Guzzler Tax of $0 is to be assessed. 

(ii) The manufacturer has the option of re-labeling vehicles during the first five working 

days after the general label value is known. 

(iii) For those vehicle model types which have been issued a specific label and are 

subsequently found to have tax liability, the manufacturer is responsible for the tax 

liability regardless of whether the vehicle has been sold or not or whether the vehicle has 

been relabeled or not. 

(b) Fuel economy range of comparable vehicles. The manufacturer shall include the 

current range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles (as described in §§ 600.311 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 290 of 339 

and 600.314) in the label of each vehicle manufactured or imported more than 15 

calendar days after the current range is made available by the Administrator. 

(1) Automobiles manufactured or imported before a date 16 or more calendar days after 

the initial label range is made available under § 600.311 shall include the range from the 

previous model year. 

(2) Automobiles manufactured or imported more than 15 calendar days after the label 

range is made available under § 600.311 shall be labeled with the current range of fuel 

economy of comparable automobiles as approved for that label. 

(c) The fuel economy label must be readily visible from the exterior of the automobile 

and remain affixed until the time the automobile is delivered to the ultimate consumer. 

(1) It is preferable that the fuel economy label information be incorporated into the 

Automobile Information Disclosure Act label, provided that the prominence and 

legibility of the fuel economy label is maintained. For this purpose, all fuel economy 

label information must be placed on a separate section in the Automobile Information 

Disclosure Act label and may not be intermixed with that label information, except for 

vehicle descriptions as noted in § 600.303–08(d)(1). 

(2) The fuel economy label must be located on a side window. If the window is not large 

enough to contain both the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label and the fuel 

economy label, the manufacturer shall have the fuel economy label affixed on another 

window and as close as possible to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label. 

(3) The manufacturer shall have the fuel economy label affixed in such a manner that 

appearance and legibility are maintained until after the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate 

consumer. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 291 of 339 

§ 600.302-08—[Revised] 

48. The redesignated § 600.302-08 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (h) 

through (j). 

49. A new § 600.302-12 is added to subpart E to read as follows: 

[NOTE: EPA is including two separate label formats in this proposal.  The label

format shown in Appendix VI is described in the following § 600.302‐12.  The

second label format is shown in Appendix VII but is not described separately.  The

data items specified in § 600.311‐12(e)(2), (i)(3)(ii), and (k) are depicted only in

the second label format.  We expect to adopt a single label format for the final

rule.  The final label may include all the data items specified in § 600.311‐12,

regardless of the way they are shown in Appendix VI and Appendix VII.]

§ 600.302‐12   Fuel economy label—general provisions.

This section describes labeling requirements and specifications that apply to all vehicles. 

The requirements and specifications in this section and those in §§ 600.304 through 

600.310 are illustrated in Appendix VI of this part. Manufacturers must make a good 

faith effort to conform to the formats illustrated in Appendix VI of this part. Label 

templates are available for download at website.here. 

(a) Basic format. Fuel economy labels must be rectangular in shape with a minimum 

height of 178 mm and a minimum width of 114 mm. Fuel economy labels must be 

printed on white or very light paper with the colors specified in Appendix VI of this part; 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 292 of 339 

any label markings for which colors are not specified must be in black and white. The 

required label can be divided into six separate fields outlined by a continuous border, as 

described in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section. 

(b) Border. Use a thin line to create an outline border for the label. 

(c) Fuel economy grade. Include the following elements in the uppermost portion of the 

label: 

(1) At the top left portion of the field, include “EPA” and “DOT” with a horizontal line 

inbetween (“EPA divided by DOT”). To the right of these characters, place a thin 

vertical line. 

(2) At the top right portion of the field, include the heading “Fuel Economy and 

Environmental Comparison”. 

(3) Below the heading, include a large circle containing the appropriate letter grade 

characterizing the vehicle’s fuel economy, as described in § 600.311-12. 

(4) Include the following statement below the letter grade: The above grade reflects fuel 

economy and greenhouse gases. Grading system ranges from A+ to D. 

(5) Manufacturers may optionally include an additional item to allow for accessing 

interactive information with mobile electronic devices. To do this, include an image of a 

QR code that will direct mobile electronic devices to a website with fuel economy 

information that is specific to the vehicle or, if this website is unavailable, to 

http://fueleconomy.gov/m/. Generate the QR code as specified in ISO/IEC 18004:2006 

(incorporated by reference in § 600.011). Above the QR code, include the caption 

“Smartphone”. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 293 of 339 

(d) Website. In the field directly below the fuel economy grade, include the following 

website reference: “website.here”. 

(e) Fuel savings. Include one of the following statements in the field directly below the 

website reference: 

(1) For vehicles with calculated fuel savings relative to the average vehicle as specified in 

§ 600.311-12: “Over five years, this vehicle saves $x in fuel costs compared to the 

average vehicle.” Complete the statement by including the calculated fuel savings as 

specified in § 600.311-12. 

(2) For vehicles with calculated fuel costs higher than the average vehicle as specified in 

§ 600.311-12: “Over five years, you will spend $x more in fuel costs compared to the 

average vehicle.” Complete the statement by including the calculated increase in fuel 

costs as specified in § 600.311-12. 

(3) For vehicles with calculated fuel costs no different than the average vehicle as 

specified in § 600.311-12: “Your fuel cost will be the same as that estimated for the 

average vehicle.” 

(f) Fuel economy and consumption data. Include the following elements in the field 

directly below the fuel savings statement: 

(1) Identify the vehicle’s fuel type in a header bar as follows: 

(i) For vehicles designed to operate on a single fuel, identify the appropriate fuel. For 

example, identify the vehicle as “Gasoline Vehicle”, “Diesel Vehicle”, “Ethanol (E85) 

Vehicle”, “Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle”, etc. This includes hybrid electric vehicles 

that do not have plug-in capability. Include a fuel pump logo to the left of this 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 294 of 339 

designation. For natural gas vehicles, use the fuel pump logo appropriate for natural gas 

and add a “CNG” logo. 

(ii) Identify flexible-fuel vehicles and dual-fuel vehicles as “Dual Fuel Vehicle 

(Gasoline& Natural Gas)”, “Dual Fuel Vehicle: (Diesel & Ethanol E85)”, etc. Include a 

fuel pump logo to the left of this designation. Also include a CNG logo, as appropriate. 

(iii) Identify plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as “Dual Fuel Vehicle: Plug-in Hybrid 

Electric”. Include a fuel pump logo to the left of this designation and an electric plug 

logo to the right of this designation. 

(iv) Identify electric vehicles as “Electric Vehicle”. Include an electric plug logo to the 

left of this designation. 

(2) Create a table below the header bar as described in this paragraph (f)(2) for vehicles 

that run on gasoline or diesel fuel with no plug-in capability. See §§ 600.306 through 

600.310 for specifications that apply for other vehicles. Create the table with five data 

values in the following sequence of columns: 

(i) Below the heading “Gallons/100 Miles”, include the value for the fuel consumption 

rate as described in § 600.311-12. 

(ii) Below the heading “MPG City”, include the value for the city fuel economy as 

described in § 600.311-12. For dual-fuel vehicles and flexible-fuel vehicles, include the 

heading “Gasoline MPG City” or “Diesel MPG City”, as appropriate. 

(iii) Below the heading “MPG Highway”, include the value for the highway fuel 

economy as described in § 600.311-12. For dual-fuel vehicles and flexible-fuel vehicles, 

include the heading “Gasoline MPG Highway” or “Diesel MPG Highway”, as 

appropriate. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 295 of 339 

(iv) Below the heading “CO2 g/mile (tailpipe only)”, include the value for the CO2

emission rate as described in § 600.311-12. 

(v) Below the heading “Annual fuel cost”, include the value for the annual fuel cost as 

described in § 600.311-12. 

(3) Include scale bars directly below the table of values as follows: 

(i) Create a scale bar in the left portion of the field to characterize the vehicle’s combined 

city and highway fuel economy relative to the range of combined fuel economy values 

for all vehicles. Position a box with a downward-pointing arrow above the scale bar 

positioned to show where that vehicle's combined fuel economy falls relative to the total 

range. Include the vehicle’s combined fuel economy (as described in § 600. 210–12(c)) 

inside the box. Include the number representing the value at the low end of the MPG or 

MPGe range and the term “Worst” inside the border at the left end of the scale bar. 

Include the number representing the value at the high end of the MPG or MPGe range 

and the term “Best” inside the border at the right end of the scale bar. EPA will 

periodically calculate and publish updated range values as described in § 600.311. 

Include the expression “Combined MPGe” directly below the scale bar. 

(ii) Create a scale bar in the middle portion of the field to characterize the vehicle’s CO2

emission rate relative to the range of CO2 emission rates for all vehicles. Position a box 

with a downward-pointing arrow above the scale bar positioned to show where that 

vehicle's CO2 emission rate falls relative to the total range. Include the vehicle’s CO2

emission rate (as described in § 600. 210–12(c)) inside the box. Include the number 

representing the value at the high end of the CO2 emission range and the term “Worst” 

inside the border at the left end of the scale bar. Include the number representing the 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 296 of 339 

value at the low end of the CO2 emission range and the term “Best” inside the border at 

the right end of the scale bar. EPA will periodically calculate and publish updated range 

values as described in § 600.311. Include the expression “CO2 g/mile” directly below the 

scale bar. 

(iii) Create a scale bar in the right portion of the field to characterize the vehicle’s level of 

emission control for other air pollutants relative to that of all vehicles. Position a box 

with a downward-pointing arrow above the scale bar positioned to show where that 

vehicle's emission rating falls relative to the total range. Include the vehicle’s emission 

rating (as described in § 600. 311-12) inside the box. Include “1 Worst” in the border at 

the left end of the scale bar and include “10 Best” in the border at the right end of the 

scale bar. EPA will periodically calculate and publish updated range values as described 

in § 600.311. Include the expression “Other Air Pollutants” directly below the scale bar. 

(4) Below the scale bars, include two statements as follows: 

(i) Include one of the following statements to identify the range of MPG values, which 

EPA will periodically calculate and publish as described in § 600.311: 

(A) For dedicated gasoline or diesel vehicles: “Fuel economy for all [mid-size cars, 

SUVs, etc., as applicable] ranges from x to y MPG.” 

(B) For dual-fuel vehicles and flexible-fuel vehicles: “Fuel economy for all [mid-size 

cars, SUVs, etc., as applicable] ranges from x to y MPGequivalent. Ratings are based on 

[GASOLINE or DIESEL FUEL] and do not reflect performance and ratings using 

[ALTERNATE FUEL]. See the Fuel Economy Guide or website.here for more 

information.” 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 297 of 339 

(ii) Include the following additional statement: “Annual fuel cost is based on x miles per 

year at $y per gallon.” For the value of x, insert the annual mileage rate established by 

EPA. For the value of y, insert the estimated cost per gallon established by EPA for 

gasoline or diesel fuel. 

(g) Footer. Include the following elements in the lowest portion of the label: 

(1) In the left portion of the field, include the statement: “Visit website.here to calculate 

estimates personalized for your driving, and to download the Fuel Economy Guide (also 

available at dealers).” 

(2) In the right portion of the field, include the logos for EPA, the Department of 

Transportation, and the Department of Energy. 

(h) Vehicle description. Where the fuel economy label is physically incorporated with the 

Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, no further vehicle description is 

needed. If the fuel economy label is separate from the Automobile Information 

Disclosure Act label, describe the vehicle in a location on the label that does not interfere 

with the other required information. In cases where the vehicle description may not easily 

fit on the label, the manufacturer may request Administrator approval of modifications to 

the label format to accommodate this information. Include the following items in the 

vehicle description, if applicable: 

(1) Model year. 

(2) Vehicle car line. 

(3) Engine displacement, in cubic inches, cubic centimeters, or liters whichever is 

consistent with the customary description of that engine. 

(4) Transmission class. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 298 of 339 

(5) Other descriptive information, as necessary, such as number of engine cylinders, to 

distinguish otherwise identical model types or, in the case of specific labels, vehicle 

configurations, as approved by the Administrator. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(j) Gas guzzler provisions. For vehicles requiring a tax statement under § 600.513, add 

the phrase “Gas Guzzler Tax” followed by the dollar amount. The tax value required by 

this paragraph (j) is based on the combined fuel economy value for the model type 

calculated according to § 600.513 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg. 

(k) Alternative label provisions for special cases. The Administrator may approve 

modifications to the style guidelines if space is limited. The Administrator may also 

prescribe special label format and information requirements for vehicles that are not 

specifically described in this subpart, such as vehicles powered by fuel cells or hydrogenfueled engines, or hybrid electric vehicles that have engines operating on fuels other than 

gasoline or diesel fuel. The revised labeling specifications will conform to the principles 

established in this subpart, with any appropriate modifications or additions to reflect the 

vehicle’s unique characteristics. See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F). 

(l) Rounding. Unless the regulation specifies otherwise, do not round intermediate values, 

but round final calculated values identified in this subpart to the nearest whole number. 

(m) Updating information. EPA will periodically publish updated information that is 

needed to comply with the labeling requirements in this subpart. This includes the annual 

mileage rates and fuel-cost information, the “best and worst” values needed for 

calculating relative ratings for individual vehicles, and the fuel-economy grade criteria as 

specified in § 600.311. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 299 of 339 

50. A new § 600.306-12 is added to subpart E to read as follows: 

§ 600.306-12 Fuel economy label—special requirements for natural gas vehicles. 

Fuel economy labels for dedicated natural gas vehicles must meet the specifications 

described in § 600.302, with the following modifications: 

(a) Create a table with six data values in the following sequence of columns instead of the 

table described in § 600.302-12(f)(2): 

(1) Below the heading “Range (miles)”, include the value for the vehicle’s driving range 

as described in § 600.311-12. 

(2) Below the heading “eGallons/100 Miles”, include the value for the fuel consumption 

rate as described in § 600.311-12. 

(3) Below the heading “MPGe City”, include the value for the city fuel economy as 

described in § 600.311-12. 

(4) Below the heading “MPGe Highway”, include the value for the highway fuel 

economy as described in § 600.311-12. 

(5) Below the heading “CO2 g/mile (tailpipe only)”, include the value for the CO2

emission rate as described in § 600.311-12. 

(6) Below the heading “Annual fuel cost”, include the value for the annual fuel cost as 

described in § 600.311-12. 

(b) Include the following two statements instead of those specified in § 600.302-12(f)(4): 

(1) “Fuel economy for all [mid-size cars, SUVs, etc., as applicable] ranges from x to y

MPGequivalent. MPGequivalent: 121.5 cubic feet CNG = 1 gallon of gasoline energy.” 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 300 of 339 

EPA will periodically calculate and publish updated values for completing this statement 

as described in § 600.311. 

(2) “Annual fuel cost is based on x miles per year at $y per gasoline gallon equivalent.” 

EPA will periodically calculate and publish updated values for completing this statement 

as described in § 600.311. 

51. A new § 600.308-12 is added to subpart E to read as follows: 

§ 600.308-12 Fuel economy label format requirements--plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles. 

Fuel economy labels for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles must meet the specifications 

described in § 600.302, with the exceptions and additional specifications described in this 

section. This section describes how to label vehicles that with gasoline engines. If the 

vehicle has a diesel engine, all the references to “gas” or “gasoline” in this section are 

understood to refer to “diesel” or “diesel fuel”, respectively. 

(a) Create a table with data values in the following sequence of columns instead of the 

table specified in § 600.302-12(f)(2): 

(1) If the vehicle’s engine starts only after the battery is fully discharged, include the 

following heading statement: “All Electric (first x miles only)”. If the vehicle uses 

combined power from the battery and the engine before the battery is fully discharged, 

include the following heading statement: “Blended Electric + Gas (first x miles only)”. 

Complete the statement using the value of x to represent the distance the vehicle drives 

before the battery is fully discharged, as described in § 600.311-12. Include the 

following data items below this heading statement: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 301 of 339 

(i) Below the heading “eGallons/100 miles”, include the value for the fuel consumption 

rate as described in § 600.311-12. 

(ii) Below the heading “Combined MPGe”, include the value for the combined fuel 

economy as described in § 600.311-12. 

(2) Include the following heading statement: “Gas only” and include the following items 

below this heading statement: 

(i) Below the heading “Gallons/100 miles”, include the value for the appropriate fuel 

consumption rate as described in § 600.311-12. 

(ii) Below the heading “Combined MPG”, include the value for the appropriate combined 

fuel economy as described in § 600.311-12. 

(3) If the vehicle’s engine starts only after the battery is fully discharged, include the 

following heading statement: “All-Electric and Gas-Only Combined”. If the vehicle uses 

combined power from the battery and the engine before the battery is fully discharged, 

include the following heading statement: “Blended and Gas-Only Combined”. Include 

the following data items below this heading statement: 

(i) Below the heading “CO2 g/mile (tailpipe only)”, include the value for the CO2

emission rate as described in § 600.311-12. 

(ii) Below the heading “Annual fuel cost”, include the value for the annual fuel cost as 

described in § 600.311-12. 

(b) Include the following two statements instead of those specified in § 600.302-12(f)(4): 

(1) “Fuel economy for all [mid-size cars, SUVs, etc., as applicable] ranges from x to y

MPGequivalent. MPGequivalent: 33.7 kW-hrs = 1 gallon gasoline energy.” EPA will 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 302 of 339 

periodically calculate and publish updated values for completing this statement as 

described in § 600.311. 

(2) “Annual fuel cost is based on x miles per year at $y per gallon and z cents per kW-hr.” 

EPA will periodically calculate and publish updated values for completing this statement 

as described in § 600.311. 

52. A new § 600.310-12 is added to subpart E to read as follows: 

§ 600.310-12 Fuel economy label format requirements--electric vehicles. 

Fuel economy labels for electric vehicles must meet the specifications described in § 

600.302, with the following exceptions and additional specifications: 

(a) Create a table with data values in the following sequence of columns instead of the 

table specified in § 600.302-12(f)(2): 

(1) Below the heading “Range (miles)”, include the value for the maximum estimated 

driving distance as described in § 600.311-12. 

(2) Below the heading “kW-hrs/100 Miles”, include the value for the fuel consumption 

rate as described in § 600.311-12. 

(3) Below the heading “MPGe City”, include the value for the city fuel economy as 

described in § 600.311-12. 

(4) Below the heading “MPGe Highway”, include the value for the highway fuel 

economy as described in § 600.311-12. 

(5) Below the heading “CO2 g/mile (tailpipe only)”, include the number 0. 

(6) Below the heading “Annual fuel cost”, include the value for the annual fuel cost as 

described in § 600.311-12. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 303 of 339 

(b) Include the following two statements instead of those specified in § 600.302-12(f)(4): 

(1) “Fuel economy for all [mid-size cars, SUVs, etc., as applicable] ranges from x to y

MPGequivalent. MPGequivalent: 33.7 kW-hrs = 1 gallon gasoline energy.” EPA will 

periodically calculate and publish updated values for completing this statement as 

described in § 600.311. 

(2) “Annual fuel cost is based on x miles per year at y cents per kW-hr.” EPA will 

periodically calculate and publish updated values for completing this statement as 

described in § 600.311. 

53. A new § 600.311-12 is added to read as follows: 

§ 600.311‐12   Determination of values for fuel economy labels.

(a) Fuel economy. Determine city and highway fuel economy values as described in § 

600.210-12(a) and (b). Determine combined fuel economy values as described in § 

600.210-12(c). Note that the label for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles requires separate 

values for combined fuel economy for vehicle operation before and after the vehicle’s 

battery is fully discharged; we generally refer to these modes as “Blended Electric+Gas” 

(or “Electric Only”, as applicable) and “Gas only”. 

(b) CO2 emission rate. Determine the engine-related CO2 emission rate as described in § 

600.210-12(d). 

(c) Fuel economy grade. Determine a vehicle’s fuel economy grade as follows: 

(1) Determine the grade that applies based on combined CO2 emission rates from 

paragraph (b) of this section according to the following table: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 304 of 339 

Table 1 of § 600.311-12 — 

Criteria to Define Fuel 

Economy Grade 

Combined CO2 (g/mi) Grade 

0-76 A+ 

77-152 A 

153-229 A230-305 B+ 

306-382 B 

383-458 B459-535 C+ 

536-611 C 

612-688 C689-764 D+ 

765+ D 

(2) We may update the grading scale periodically based on the median CO2 emission rate 

for all model types. We would do this by doubling the median value from a given model 

year to establish the nominal full range of CO2 values, then dividing this full range into 

eleven equal intervals, after rounding to the nearest whole number. For reference, the 

grade distribution in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is based on a median value of 421 

g/mi CO2. 

(d) Fuel consumption rate. Calculate the fuel consumption rate as follows: 

(1) For vehicles with engines that are not plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, calculate the 

fuel consumption rate in gallons per 100 miles (or gasoline gallon equivalent per 100 

miles for fuels other than gasoline or diesel fuel) with the following formula, rounded to 

the first decimal place: 

Fuel Consumption Rate = 100/MPG 

Where: 

MPG = The combined fuel economy value from paragraph (a) of this section. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 305 of 339 

(2) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, calculate two separate fuel consumption rates as 

follows: 

(i) Calculate the fuel consumption rate based on engine operation after the battery is fully 

discharged as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

(ii) Calculate the fuel consumption rate during operation before the battery is fully 

discharged in gasoline gallon equivalent per 100 miles as described in SAE J1711 

(incorporated by reference in § 600.011), as described in § 600.116. 

(3) For electric vehicles, calculate the fuel consumption rate in kW-hours per 100 miles 

with the following formula, rounded to the nearest whole number: 

Fuel Consumption Rate = 100/MPG 

Where: 

MPG = The combined fuel economy value from paragraph (a) of this section, in miles per 

kW-hour. 

(e) Annual fuel cost. Calculate annual fuel costs as follows: 

(1) Calculate the total annual fuel cost with the following formula, rounded to nearest 

whole number: 

Annual Fuel Cost = [f1 × Fuel Price1/MPG1 + f2 × Fuel Price2/MPG2] × Average Annual 

Miles 

Where: 

fi = The fraction of the vehicle’s overall driving distance that is projected to occur for 

fuel i. For vehicles that operate on only one fuel, f1 = 1 and f2 = 0. For plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles, determine the values of fi from SAE J 2841 (incorporated by reference 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 306 of 339 

in § 600.011). For dual fuel vehicles and flexible fuel vehicles, disregard operation on 

the alternative fuel. 

Fuel Pricei = The estimated fuel price provided by EPA for fuel i. The units are dollars 

per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, dollars per gasoline gallon equivalent for natural 

gas, and dollars per kW-hr for plug-in electricity. 

MPGi = The combined fuel economy value from paragraph (a) of this section for fuel i. 

The units are miles per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, miles per gasoline gallon 

equivalent for natural gas, and miles per kW-hr for plug-in electricity. 

Average Annual Miles = The estimated annual mileage figure provided by EPA, in miles. 

(2) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, calculate a separate annual cost estimate using 

the equation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section by assuming the battery is never charged 

from an external power source. Similarly, calculate an annual cost estimate by assuming 

the battery is regularly charged from an external power source such that it is never fully 

discharged. 

(f) Fuel savings. Calculate an estimated five-year cost increment relative to an average 

vehicle by multiplying the rounded annual fuel cost from paragraph (e) of this section by 

5 and subtracting this value from the median five-year fuel cost. We will calculate the 

median five-year fuel cost from the annual fuel cost equation in paragraph (e) of this 

section based on a gasoline-fueled vehicle with a median fuel economy value. The 

median five-year fuel cost is $10,000 for a 21-mpg vehicle that drives 15,000 miles per 

year with gasoline priced at $2.80 per gallon. We may periodically update this median 

five-year fuel cost to better characterize the fuel economy for an average vehicle. Round 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 307 of 339 

the calculated five-year cost increment to the nearest $100. Negative values represent a 

cost increase compared to the average vehicle. 

(g) Other air pollutant score. Establish an score for exhaust emissions other than CO2

based on the applicable emission standards as shown in Table 2 of this section. For 

Independent Commercial Importers that import vehicles not subject to Tier 2 emissions 

standards, the air pollutant score for the vehicle is 1. 

Table 2 of § 600.311-12 —Criteria for Establishing Air Pollution Score 

Score U,S. EPA Tier 2 Emission 

Standard 

California Air Resources Board 

LEV II Emission Standard 

1 — ULEV &LEV II large trucks 

2 Bin 8 SULEV II large trucks 

3 Bin 7 — 

4 Bin 6 LEV II, option 1 

5 Bin 5 LEV II 

6 Bin 4 ULEV II 

7 Bin 3 — 

8 Bin 2 SULEV II 

9 — PZEV 

10 Bin 1 ZEV 

(h) Ranges of fuel economy and CO2 emission values. We will determine the range of 

combined fuel economy and CO2 emission values for each vehicle class identified in § 

600.315. We will generally update these range values before the start of each model year 

based on the lowest and highest values within each vehicle class. We will also use this 

same information to establish a range of fuel economy values for all vehicles. Continue 

to use the most recently published numbers until we update them, even if you start a new 

model year before we publish the range values for the new model year. 

(i) Driving range. Determine the driving range for certain vehicles as follows: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 308 of 339 

(1) For electric vehicles, determine the vehicle’s overall driving range as described in 

Section 8 of SAE J1634 (incorporated by reference in § 600.011), as described in § 

600.116. Determine separate range values for FTP-based city and HFET-based highway 

driving, then calculate a combined value by arithmetically averaging the two values, 

weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and round to the nearest whole number. 

(2) For natural gas vehicles, determine the vehicle’s driving range in miles by multiplying 

the combined fuel economy described in paragraph (a) of this section by the vehicle’s 

fuel tank capacity, rounded to the nearest whole number. 

(3) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, determine the battery driving range and overall 

driving range as described in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in § 600.011), as 

described in § 600.116, as follows: 

(i) Determine the vehicle’s Actual Charge-Depleting Range, Rcda. Determine separate 

range values for FTP-based city and HFET-based highway driving, then calculate a 

combined value by arithmetically averaging the two values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 

respectively, and round to the nearest whole number. 

(ii) Use good engineering judgment to calculate the vehicle’s operating distance before 

the fuel tank is empty when starting with a full fuel tank and a fully charged battery, 

consistent with the procedure and calculation specified in paragraph (i)(3)(i) of this 

section and the fuel economy values as described in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(j) [Reserved] 

(k) Charge time. For electric vehicles, determine the time it takes to fully charge the 

battery from a standard 110 volt power source to the point that the battery meets the 

manufacturer’s end-of-charge criteria, consistent with the procedures specified in SAE 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 309 of 339 

J1634 (incorporated by reference in § 600.011) for electric vehicles and in SAE J1711 

(incorporated by reference in § 600.011) for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, as described 

in § 600.116. This value may be more or less than the 12-hour minimum charging time 

specified for testing. You may alternatively specify the charge time based on a 220 volt 

power source if your owners manual recommends charging with the higher voltage; you 

must then identify the voltage associated with the charge time on the fuel economy label. 

(l) California-specific values. If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended 

for sale in California are likely to exhibit significant differences in fuel economy or other 

label values from those intended for sale in other states, the Administrator will compute 

separate values for each class of automobiles for California and for the other states. 

54. § 600.314-08 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.314‐08   Updating label values, annual fuel cost, Gas Guzzler Tax, and range of

fuel economy for comparable automobiles.

(a) The label values established in § 600.312 shall remain in effect for the model year 

unless updated in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b)(1) The manufacturer shall recalculate the model type fuel economy values for any 

model type containing base levels affected by running changes specified in § 600.507. 

(2) For separate model types created in § 600.209–08(a)(2) or § 600.209–12(a)(2), the 

manufacturer shall recalculate the model type values for any additions or deletions of 

subconfigurations to the model type. Minimum data requirements specified in § 

600.010(c) shall be met prior to recalculation. 

(3) Label value recalculations shall be performed as follows: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 310 of 339 

(i) The manufacturer shall use updated total model year projected sales for label value 

recalculations. 

(ii) All model year data approved by the Administrator at the time of the recalculation for 

that model type shall be included in the recalculation. 

(iii) Using the additional data under paragraph (b) of this section, the manufacturer shall 

calculate new model type city and highway values in accordance with § 600.210 except 

that the values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg. 

(iv) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with § 600.210, shall be rounded 

to the nearest 0.1 mpg. 

(4)(i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of 

this section is less than the respective city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this 

section by 1.0 mpg or more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with the recalculated 

model type values (rounded to the nearest whole mpg) to all new vehicles of that model 

type beginning on the day of implementation of the running change. 

(ii) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this 

section is higher than the respective city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this 

section by 1.0 mpg or more, then the manufacturer has the option to use the recalculated 

values for labeling the entire model type beginning on the day of implementation of the 

running change. 

(c) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy values determined 

in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the manufacturer shall concurrently 

update all other label information (e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles 

and the applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax as needed). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 311 of 339 

(d) The Administrator shall periodically update the range of fuel economies of 

comparable automobiles based upon all label data supplied to the Administrator. 

(e) The manufacturer may request permission from the Administrator to calculate and use 

label values based on test data from vehicles which have not completed the 

Administrator-ordered confirmatory testing required under the provisions of § 600.008–

08(b). If the Administrator approves such a calculation the following procedures shall be 

used to determine if relabeling is required after the confirmatory testing is completed. 

(1) The Administrator-ordered confirmatory testing shall be completed as quickly as 

possible. 

(2) Using the additional data under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the manufacturer 

shall calculate new model type city and highway values in accordance with §§ 600.207 

and 600.210 except that the values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg. 

(3) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with § 600.210, shall be rounded 

to the nearest 0.1 mpg. 

(4) The manufacturer may need to revise fuel economy labels as follows: 

(i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this 

section is less than the respective city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this 

section by 0.5 mpg or more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with the recalculated 

model type MPG values (rounded to the nearest whole number) to all new vehicles of 

that model type beginning 15 days after the completion of the confirmatory test. 

(ii) If both the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of 

this section is less than the respective city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this 

section by 0.1 mpg or more and the recalculated gas guzzler tax rate determined under the 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 312 of 339 

provisions of § 600.513–08 is larger, the manufacturer shall affix labels with the 

recalculated model type values and gas guzzler tax statement and rates to all new vehicles 

of that model type beginning 15 days after the completion of the confirmatory test. 

(5) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy values determined 

in accordance with paragraph (e)(4) of this section, the manufacturer shall concurrently 

update all other label information (e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles 

and the applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax if required by Department of Treasury 

regulations). 

55. Section 600.315-08 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 600.315‐08   Classes of comparable automobiles.

(a) * * * 

(2) The Administrator will classify light trucks (nonpassenger automobiles) into the 

following classes: Small pickup trucks, standard pickup trucks, vans, minivans, and 

SUVs. Starting in the 2012 model year, SUVs will be divided between small sport utility 

vehicles and standard sport utility vehicles. Pickup trucks and SUVs are separated by car 

line on the basis of gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). For a product line with more 

than one GVWR, establish the characteristic GVWR value for the product line by 

calculating the arithmetic average of all distinct GVWR values less than or equal to 8,500 

pounds available for that product line. The Administrator may determine that specific 

light trucks should be most appropriately placed in a different class or in the special 

purpose vehicle class as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, based on 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 313 of 339 

the features and characteristics of the specific vehicle, consumer information provided by 

the manufacturer, and other information available to consumers. 

(i) Small pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR below 6000 pounds. 

(ii) Standard pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR at or above 6000 pounds and at 

or below 8,500 pounds. 

(iii) Vans. 

(iv) Minivans. 

(v) Small sport utility vehicles. Sport utility vehicles with a GVWR below 6000 pounds. 

(vi) Standard sport utility vehicles. Sport utility vehicles with a GVWR at or above 6000 

pounds and at or below 10,000 pounds.

* * * * * 

(c) All interior and cargo dimensions are measured in inches to the nearest 0.1 inch. All 

dimensions and volumes shall be determined from the base vehicles of each body style in 

each car line, and do not include optional equipment. The dimensions H61, W3, W5, 

L34, H63, W4, W6, L51, H201, L205, L210, L211, H198, W201, and volume V1 are to 

be determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in Motor Vehicle Dimensions 

SAE J1100a (incorporated by reference in § 600.011), except as follows: 

* * * * * 

56. The redesignated § 600.316-08 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.316‐08  Multistage manufacture.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 314 of 339 

Where more than one person is the manufacturer of a vehicle, the final stage 

manufacturer (as defined in 49 CFR 529.3) is treated as the vehicle manufacturer for 

purposes of compliance with this subpart. 

Subpart E—Dealer Availability of Fuel Economy Information

57. The heading for subpart E is revised as set forth above. 

§ 600.401‐77, § 600.402‐77, § 600.403‐77, § 600.404‐77, § 600.405‐77, § 600.406‐77, §

600.407‐77—[Removed]

58. Subpart E is amended by removing the following sections: 

§ 600.401-77 

§ 600.402-77 

§ 600.403-77 

§ 600.404-77 

§ 600.405-77 

§ 600.406-77 

§ 600.407-77 

Subpart F—Procedures for Determining Manufacturer's Average Fuel Economy and

Manufacturer’s Average Carbon‐related Exhaust Emissions

59. The heading for subpart F is revised as set forth above. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 315 of 339 

§ 600.501‐12, § 600.501‐85, § 600.501‐86, § 600.501‐93, § 600.503‐78, § 600.504‐78, §

600.505‐78, § 600.507‐86, § 600.510‐86, § 600.510‐93, § 600.512‐01, § 600.512‐86, §

600.513‐81, § 600.513‐91—[Removed]

60. Subpart F is amended by removing the following sections: 

§ 600.501-12 

§ 600.501-85 

§ 600.501-86 

§ 600.501-93 

§ 600.503-78 

§ 600.504-78 

§ 600.505-78 

§ 600.507-86 

§ 600.510-86 

§ 600.510-93 

§ 600.512-01 

§ 600.512-86 

§ 600.513-81 

§ 600.513-91 

61. Redesignate § 600.502-81 as § 600.502. 

62. The redesignated § 600.502 is revised to read as follows: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 316 of 339 

§ 600.502   Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this subpart in addition to those in § 600.002: 

(a) The Declared value of imported components shall be: 

(1) The value at which components are declared by the importer to the U.S. Customs 

Service at the date of entry into the customs territory of the United States; or 

(2) With respect to imports into Canada, the declared value of such components as if they 

were declared as imports into the United States at the date of entry into Canada; or 

(3) With respect to imports into Mexico, the declared value of such components as if they 

were declared as imports into the United States at the date of entry into Mexico. 

(b) Cost of production of a car line shall mean the aggregate of the products of: 

(1) The average U.S. dealer wholesale price for such car line as computed from each 

official dealer price list effective during the course of a model year, and 

(2) The number of automobiles within the car line produced during the part of the model 

year that the price list was in effect. 

(c) Equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value means a number representing the 

average number of miles traveled by an electric vehicle per gallon of gasoline. 

63. § 600.507-12 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 600.507‐12 Running change data requirements.

(a) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the manufacturer shall submit 

additional running change fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emissions data as 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 317 of 339 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for any running change approved or 

implemented under § 86.1842 of this chapter, which: 

* * * * * 

(c) The manufacturer shall submit the fuel economy data required by this section to the 

Administrator in accordance with § 600.314. 

* * * * * 

64. Redesignate § 600.509-86 as § 600.509-08. 

65. § 600.510-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) introductory text, (b)(3) 

introductory text, (c)(2)(iv)(B), (g)(1), (i) introductory text, (j)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 600.510‐12 Calculation of average fuel economy and average carbon‐related

exhaust emissions.

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The combined city/highway fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission values 

will be calculated for each model type in accordance with § 600.208 except that: 

* * * * * 

(3) The fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission values for each vehicle 

configuration are the combined fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emissions 

calculated according to § 600.206–12(a)(3) except that: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 318 of 339 

(2) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(B) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on alcohol fuel as 

determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(ii) divided by 0.15 provided the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this section are met; or 

* * * * * 

(g)(1) Alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel automobiles must provide 

equal or greaterr energy efficiency while operating on alcohol or natural gas as while 

operating on gasoline or diesel fuel to obtain the CAFE credit determined in paragraphs 

(c)(2)(iv) and (v) of this section or to obtain the carbon-related exhaust emissions credit 

determined in paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section. The following equation must 

hold true: 

Ealt/Epet > 1 

Where:

Ealt= [FEalt/(NHValt× Dalt)] × 106 = energy efficiency while operating on alternative fuel rounded to the 

nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.

Epet= [FEpet/(NHVpet× Dpet)] × 106 = energy efficiency while operating on gasoline or diesel (petroleum) 

fuel rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.

FEaltis the fuel economy [miles/gallon for liquid fuels or miles/100 standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels] 

while operated on the alternative fuel as determined in § 600.113–12(a) and (b).

FEpetis the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while operated on petroleum fuel (gasoline or diesel) as determined 

in § 600.113-12(a) and (b).

NHValtis the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the alternative fuel.

NHVpetis the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the petroleum fuel.

Daltis the density [lb/gallon for liquid fuels or lb/100 standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels] of the alternative 

fuel.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 319 of 339 

Dpetis the density [lb/gallon] of the petroleum fuel.

(i) The equation must hold true for both the FTP city and HFET highway fuel economy 

values for each test of each test vehicle. 

(ii)(A) The net heating value for alcohol fuels shall be premeasured using a test method 

which has been approved in advance by the Administrator. 

(B) The density for alcohol fuels shall be premeasured using ASTM D 1298–99 

(incorporated by reference at § 600.011). (iii) The net heating value and density of 

gasoline are to be determined by the manufacturer in accordance with § 600.113. 

* * * * * 

(i) For model years 2012 through 2015, and for each category of automobile identified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the maximum decrease in average carbon-related exhaust 

emissions determined in paragraph (j) of this section attributable to alcohol dual fuel 

automobiles and natural gas dual fuel automobiles shall be calculated using the following 

formula, and rounded to the nearest tenth of a gram per mile: 

Maximum Decrease = FltAvg

MPG

FltAvg MAX

−

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ − 8887

8887

Where: 

FltAvg = The fleet average CREE value in grams per mile, rounded to the nearest 

whole number, for passenger automobiles or light trucks determined for the applicable 

model year according to paragraph (j) of this section, except by assuming all alcohol dual 

fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles are operated exclusively on gasoline (or diesel) 

fuel. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 320 of 339 

MPGMAX = The maximum increase in miles per gallon determined for the 

appropriate model year in paragraph (h) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(2) A sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a model type within that category of 

automobiles and is a product determined by multiplying the number of automobiles of 

that model type produced by the manufacturer in the model year by: 

(i) For gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled model types, the carbon-related exhaust 

emissions value calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section; or 

(ii)(A) For alcohol-fueled model types, for model years 2012 through 2015, the carbonrelated exhaust emissions value calculated for that model type in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section multiplied by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest gram per 

mile, except that manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and 

CH4 as allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter must perform this calculation such that 

N2O and CH4 values are not multiplied by 0.15; or 

(B) For alcohol-fueled model types, for model years 2016 and later, the carbon-related 

exhaust emissions value calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section; or 

(iii)(A) For natural gas-fueled model types, for model years 2012 through 2015, the 

carbon-related exhaust emissions value calculated for that model type in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section multiplied by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest gram per 

mile, except that manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 321 of 339 

CH4 as allowed under § 86.1818 of this chapter must perform this calculation such that 

N2O and CH4 values are not multiplied by 0.15; or 

(B) For natural gas-fueled model types, for model years 2016 and later, the carbonrelated exhaust emissions value calculated for that model type in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or 

(iv) For alcohol dual fuel model types, for model years 2012 through 2015, the arithmetic 

average of the following two terms, the result rounded to the nearest gram per mile: 

(A) The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value for operation on 

gasoline or diesel fuel as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(i); and 

(B) The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value for operation on 

alcohol fuel as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(ii) multiplied by 0.15 provided the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this section are met, except that manufacturers 

complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as allowed under § 86.1818 

of this chapter must perform this calculation such that N2O and CH4 values are not 

multiplied by 0.15; or 

(v) For natural gas dual fuel model types, for model years 2012 through 2015, the 

arithmetic average of the following two terms; the result rounded to the nearest gram per 

mile: 

(A) The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value for operation on 

gasoline or diesel as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(i); and 

(B) The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value for operation on 

natural gas as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(ii) multiplied by 0.15 provided the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this section are met, except that manufacturers 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 322 of 339 

complying with the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as allowed under § 86.1818 

of this chapter must perform this calculation such that N2O and CH4 values are not 

multiplied by 0.15. 

(vi) For alcohol dual fuel model types, for model years 2016 and later, the combined 

model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value determined according to the following 

formula and rounded to the nearest gram per mile: 

CREE = (F × CREEalt) + ( (1-F) × CREEgas ) 

Where: 

F = 0.00 unless otherwise approved by the Administrator according to the provisions of 

paragraph (k) of this section; 

CREEalt = The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value for 

operation on alcohol fuel as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(ii); and 

CREEgas = The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value for 

operation on gasoline or diesel fuel as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(i). 

(vii) For natural gas dual fuel model types, for model years 2016 and later, the 

combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value determined according to 

the following formula and rounded to the nearest gram per mile: 

CREE = (F × CREEalt) + ( (1-F) × CREEgas ) 

Where: 

F = 0.00 unless otherwise approved by the Administrator according to the provisions of 

paragraph (k) of this section; 

CREEalt = The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value for 

operation on natural gas as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(ii); and 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 323 of 339 

CREEgas = The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value for 

operation on gasoline or diesel fuel as determined in § 600.208-12(b)(5)(i). 

* * * * * 

66. Redesignate § 600.511-80 as § 600.511-08. 

67. § 600.512-12 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 600.512‐12 Model year report.

* * * * * 

(c) The model year report must include the following information: 

(1)(i) All fuel economy data used in the FTP/HFET-based model type calculations under 

§ 600.208–12, and subsequently required by the Administrator in accordance with § 

600.507; 

(ii) All carbon-related exhaust emission data used in the FTP/HFET-based model type 

calculations under § 600.208–12, and subsequently required by the Administrator in 

accordance with § 600.507; 

(2) (i) All fuel economy data for certification vehicles and for vehicles tested for running 

changes approved under § 86.1842 of this chapter; 

(ii) All carbon-related exhaust emission data for certification vehicles and for vehicles 

tested for running changes approved under § 86.1842 of this chapter; 

(3) Any additional fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission data submitted by 

the manufacturer under § 600.509; 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 324 of 339 

(4)(i) A fuel economy value for each model type of the manufacturer's product line 

calculated according to § 600.510-12(b)(2); 

(ii) A carbon-related exhaust emission value for each model type of the manufacturer's 

product line calculated according to § 600.510-12(b)(2); 

(5)(i) The manufacturer's average fuel economy value calculated according to § 600.510-

12(c); 

(ii) The manufacturer's average carbon-related exhaust emission value calculated 

according to § 600.510(j); 

(6) A listing of both domestically and nondomestically produced car lines as determined 

in § 600.511 and the cost information upon which the determination was made; and 

(7) The authenticity and accuracy of production data must be attested to by the 

corporation, and shall bear the signature of an officer (a corporate executive of at least the 

rank of vice-president) designated by the corporation. Such attestation shall constitute a 

representation by the manufacturer that the manufacturer has established reasonable, 

prudent procedures to ascertain and provide production data that are accurate and 

authentic in all material respects and that these procedures have been followed by 

employees of the manufacturer involved in the reporting process. The signature of the 

designated officer shall constitute a representation by the required attestation. 

(8) [Reserved] 

(9) The “required fuel economy level” pursuant to 49 CFR parts 531 or 533, as 

applicable. Model year reports shall include information in sufficient detail to verify the 

accuracy of the calculated required fuel economy level, including but is not limited to, 

production information for each unique footprint within each model type contained in the 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 325 of 339 

model year report and the formula used to calculate the required fuel economy level. 

Model year reports shall include a statement that the method of measuring vehicle track 

width, measuring vehicle wheelbase and calculating vehicle footprint is accurate and 

complies with applicable Department of Transportation requirements. 

(10) The “required fuel economy level” pursuant to 49 CFR parts 531 or 533 as 

applicable, and the applicable fleet average CO2 emission standards. Model year reports 

shall include information in sufficient detail to verify the accuracy of the calculated 

required fuel economy level and fleet average CO2 emission standards, including but is 

not limited to, production information for each unique footprint within each model type 

contained in the model year report and the formula used to calculate the required fuel 

economy level and fleet average CO2 emission standards. Model year reports shall 

include a statement that the method of measuring vehicle track width, measuring vehicle 

wheelbase and calculating vehicle footprint is accurate and complies with applicable 

Department of Transportation and EPA requirements. 

(11) A detailed (but easy to understand) list of vehicle models and the applicable in-use 

CREE emission standard. The list of models shall include the applicable 

carline/subconfiguration parameters (including carline, equivalent test weight, road-load 

horsepower, axle ratio, engine code, transmission class, transmission configuration and 

basic engine); the test parameters (ETW and a, b, c, dynamometer coefficients) and the 

associated CREE emission standard. The manufacturer shall provide the method of 

identifying EPA engine code for applicable in-use vehicles. 

68. § 600.513-08 is revised to read as follows: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 326 of 339 

§ 600.513‐08   Gas Guzzler Tax.

(a) This section applies only to passenger automobiles sold after December 27, 1991, 

regardless of the model year of those vehicles. For alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual 

fuel automobiles, the fuel economy while such automobiles are operated on gasoline will 

be used for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments. 

(1) The provisions of this section do not apply to passenger automobiles exempted for 

Gas Guzzler Tax assessments by applicable federal law and regulations. However, the 

manufacturer of an exempted passenger automobile may, in its discretion, label such 

vehicles in accordance with the provisions of this section. 

(2) For 1991 and later model year passenger automobiles, the combined FTP/HFETbased model type fuel economy value determined in § 600.208 used for Gas Guzzler Tax 

assessments shall be calculated in accordance with the following equation, rounded to the 

nearest 0.1 mpg: 

FEadj= FE[((0.55 × ag× c) + (0.45 × c) + (0.5556 × ag) + 0.4487) / ((0.55 × ag) + 0.45)] + 

IWg

Where: 

FEadj= Fuel economy value to be used for determination of gas guzzler tax assessment 

rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg. 

FE = Combined model type fuel economy calculated in accordance with § 600.208, 

rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. 

ag= Model type highway fuel economy, calculated in accordance with § 600.208, rounded 

to the nearest 0.0001 mpg divided by the model type city fuel economy calculated in 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 327 of 339 

accordance with § 600.208, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. The quotient shall be 

rounded to 4 decimal places. 

c = gas guzzler adjustment factor = 1.300 × 10−3

 for the 1986 and later model years. 

IWg= (9.2917 × 10−3

× SF3IWCGFE3IWCG) − (3.5123 × 10−3× SF4ETWG× FE4IWCG). 

Note: Any calculated value of IW less than zero shall be set equal to zero. 

SF3IWCG= The 3000 lb. inertia weight class sales in the model type divided by the total 

model type sales; the quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places. 

SF4ETWG= The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight sales in the model type divided by the total 

model type sales, the quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places. 

FE3IWCG= The 3000 lb. inertial weight class base level combined fuel economy used to 

calculate the model type fuel economy rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. 

FE4IWCG= The 4000 lb. inertial weight class base level combined fuel economy used to 

calculate the model type fuel economy rounded to the nearest 0.001 mpg. 

(b)(1) For passenger automobiles sold after December 31, 1990, with a combined 

FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value of less than 22.5 mpg (as determined in 

§ 600.208), calculated in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section and rounded to 

the nearest 0.1 mpg, each vehicle fuel economy label shall include a Gas Guzzler Tax 

statement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(E). The tax amount stated shall be as 

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(2) For passenger automobiles with a combined general label model type fuel economy 

value of: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 328 of 339 

At least... but less than... the Gas Guzzler Tax 

statement shall show a tax 

of ... 

(i) 22.5 — $0 

(ii) 21.5 22.5 $1,000 

(iii) 20.5 21.5 $1,300 

(iv) 19.5 20.5 $1,700 

(v) 18.5 19.5 $2,100 

(vi) 17.5 18.5 $2,600 

(vii) 16.5 17.5 $3,000 

(viii) 15.5 16.5 $3,700 

(ix) 14.5 15.5 $4,500 

(x) 13.5 14.5 $5,400 

(xi) 12.5 13.5 $6,400 

(xii) — 12.5 $7,700 

Appendix I to Part 600—Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule

69. The heading for Appendix I is revised as set forth above. 

70. Appendix II is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: 

Appendix II to Part 600—Sample Fuel Economy Calculations

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Assume that the same vehicle was tested by the Federal Highway Fuel Economy Test 

Procedure and a calculation similar to that shown in (b)(3) of this section resulted in a 

highway fuel economy of MPGhof 36.9. According to the procedure in § 600.210-08(c) 

or § 600.210–12(c), the combined fuel economy (called MPGcomb) for the vehicle may be 

calculated by substituting the city and highway fuel economy values into the following 

equation: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 329 of 339 

Appendix IV to Part 600—Sample Fuel Economy Labels for 2008 through 2011 Model

Year Vehicles

71. The heading for Appendix IV is revised as set forth above. 

Appendix V to Part 600—Fuel Economy Label Style Guidelines for 2008 through 2011

Model Year Vehicles

72. The heading for Appendix V is revised as set forth above. 

73. Appendix VI is revised to read as follows: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 330 of 339 

Appendix VI to Part 600—Sample Fuel Economy Labels and Style Guidelines for 2012

and Later Model Years

A. Gasoline-fueled or diesel-fueled vehicles, including hybrid electric vehicles with no 

plug-in capabilities. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 331 of 339 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 332 of 339 

B. Dual Fuel Vehicle Label (Ethanol/Gasoline) 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 333 of 339 

C. Natural Gas Vehicle Label 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 334 of 339 

D. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Label 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 335 of 339 

E. Electric Vehicle Label 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 336 of 339 

Appendix VIII. --- [Removed] 

74. Appendix VIII is removed. 

Department of Transportation 

49 CFR Chapter V 

In consideration of the foregoing, under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 1232 and 49 U.S.C. 

32908 and delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 

Chapter V as follows: 

PART 575—CONSUMER INFORMATION 

1. The authority citation for part 575 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, and 20168, Pub. L. 

104-414, 114 Stat. 1800, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 15 U.S.C. 1232(g); delegation 

of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Amend § 575.301 by revising the section heading and adding a new 

paragraph (d)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 575.301 Vehicle labeling of safety rating information.

* * * * * 

 (d) * * * 

 (6) [forthcoming] 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 337 of 339 

* * * * * 

3. Add Subpart E to part 575 to read as follows: 

Subpart E – Fuel Economy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Other Pollutant 

Emissions Labeling for New Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Consumer 

Information 

[forthcoming] 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 338 of 339 

Proposed Rulemaking 

Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label 

Page 336 of 337 

Dated: 

________________________________ 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary, Department of Transportation 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-26-10 

Page 339 of 339 

Proposed Rulemaking 

Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label 

Page 337 of 337 

Dated: 

_______________________________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency